HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3698 of 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed to quash the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, in Crl.M.P.No.132 of 2007 in M.C.No.11 of 2005. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent herein filed M.C.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. Initially though the petitioner appeared before the Court below, subsequently he remained absent. Hence, the Court below, by order dated 14.12.2006, set him ex parte, recorded the evidence of 2nd respondent and awarded maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of the petition. As the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance, the 2nd respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.132 of 2007 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the petitioner to pay the maintenance arrears of Rs.63,000/- and sentence him to suffer imprisonment, in case of default. In as much as the petitioner failed to pay the arrears on the date of hearing, the Court below, by order dated 06.06.2007, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one month. The same is under challenge in this petition. 3. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, she has not chosen to put in her appearance either in person or through an Advocate. 4. This Court, by order dated 20.06.2007, while issuing notice to the 2nd respondent, granted bail to the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below and also on condition of his paying 1/4th of the arrears of maintenance forthwith and pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to the 2nd respondent during pendency of the Criminal Petition. 5. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner has deposited 1/4th of the arrears of maintenance and is paying Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd respondent every month towards maintenance as directed by this Court. 6. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has deposited the 1/4th of the arrears of maintenance and is continuing to pay Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd respondent every month towards maintenance, and also the ex parte order passed by the Court below awarding maintenance to the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to contest the maintenance case and so the impugned order as well as the ex parte order passed in the maintenance case are liable to be quashed, however, on some conditions. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, in Crl.M.P.No.132 of 2007 in M.C.No.11 of 2005 is quashed and the order dated 14.12.2006 in M.C.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, is set aside, and consequently, the maintenance case is restored to file, with liberty to the petitioner to contest the same, subject to the petitioner paying Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) per month towards interim maintenance to the 2nd respondent during pendency of the maintenance case. In case the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited 1/4th of the arrears of maintenance and is paying Rs.2,000/- every month to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance as per the orders of this Court dated 20.06.2007 appears to be incorrect, this order shall not be in force and the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance, as ordered by the trial court. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 14th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3698 of 2007 (Allowed) Date:14-06-2010 CBS _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 14th June, 2010 CBS In case the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited 1/4th of the arrears of maintenance and is paying Rs.2,000/- every month to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance appears to be incorrect, it is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the said amount to the 2nd respondent as per the orders of this Court dated 20.06.2007 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order