IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2110 OF 2009. Between: Kammaluri Uma Shankar … Petitioner V/s. Kammaluri Revathi @ Reddemma & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Md. Saleem Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 : Sri S.S. Bhatt Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Addl. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order : (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2110 OF 2009 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in MC.No. 1 of 2006, dated 15-7-2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalle, Kadapa district as confirmed by the V-Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa district, through order dated 10- 2-2009 in Crl.RP.No. 50 of 2008 and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case are that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. At the time of marriage, her parents presented cash of Rs.one lakh besides 15 tulas of told ornaments towards lanchanalu. Subsequently during the third month pregnancy, the petitioner herein started harassing the first respondent without any reason and subsequently necked out her and thereafter she was forced to stay at the house of her parents and subsequently she gave birth to the second respondent herein. It is stated that the petitioner herein neglected to maintain the respondents 1 and 2 herein. In spite of mediation, the petitioner has not taken the respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner herein is having landed properties and he is doing business and earning Rs.two lakhs per annum. It is further stated that the petitioner herein filed a divorce petition against the first respondent and obtained ex-parte divorce decree against her. The respondents 1 and 2 filed MC.No. 1 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalle, Kadapa district, seeking maintenance of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- per month respectively towards their maintenance. 3. On the other hand, the petitioner herein denied the allegations mentioned in the petition except admitting the relationship between the first respondent and the petitioner. It is averred in the counter that the second respondent herein was not born to him. He obtained divorce decree against the first respondent from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle on 29-3-2004. Since the first respondent herself left the house of the petitioner, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The petitioner herein is not having income of Rs.two lakhs per year from various sources as pleaded by the first respondent. Hence prayed to dismiss the maintenance case. 4. During the course of enquiry, the learned Magistrate examined the first respondent herein as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the petitioner herein, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate allowed MC.No.1 of 2006 by an order dated 15-7-2008 and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the first respondent herein and Rs.1000/- to the second respondent herein as their maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed Crl.R.P.No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Court of V-Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa district contending that the learned Magistrate failed to take note of the divorce decree which was granted in OP.No.30 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor district, in his favour and against the first respondent herein, which clearly shows that the first respondent herein herself had deserted the petitioner herein. Had the trial considered Ex.R-1, it ought to have declined to grant maintenance to the first respondent herein. The trial court ought to have noted that the first respondent herein lived with him for about two or three months as per her version. Further it is contended that the trial court wrongly concluded that the properties stands in the name of his parents is not the properties of the petitioner herein. Further the trial court presumed that he is having sufficient means on the ground that his brother is an Engineer. Further the trial court without deciding his income had wrongly awarded Rs.1500/- per month to the first respondent herein and Rs.1000/- per month to the second respondent herein. 7. The learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa district, after hearing both parties on record and on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, confirmed the order dated 15-7-2008 passed in MC.No. 1 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalli and dismissed the Crl.RP.No. 50 of 2008 through order dated 10-2-2009. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-2009 passed in Crl.RP.No. 50 of 2008 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa district, confirming the order dated 15-7-2008 passed in MC.No. 1 of 2008 by the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalli, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner- husband. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner called absent and no representation on his behalf. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the concurrent orders passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. 10. As can be seen from the order of the trial court as well as the first appellate court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent order. The maintenance amount awarded by both the courts below to the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to be exorbitant in these hard days of galloping double-digit inflation and skyrocketed economy. This Court is of the considered opinion that both the learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner herein and gave cogent reasoning for their conclusion. Hence, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below to interfere at this stage. However, the petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance amounts as granted by both the courts below, which was confirmed by this court, together with arrears accrued thereon till date, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 30-12-2010 I s L N B : Furnish CC tomorrow B/o. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2110 OF 2009 Circulation No. 30 Date:30-12-2010 Court Master: IsL Computer No.43