THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6238 of 2008 Dated:- 30th April, 2010 Between:- Muppina Wesley David …Petitioner AND Smt.Deena Swarna Priyan and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6238 of 2008 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is has been field by the petitioner praying to quash proceedings in M.C.No.49 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kakinada. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She filed Maintenance Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- from the petitioner herein. Her main case is that her marriage with the petitioner took place on 28.12.2005 at Secunderabad and their marriage was consummated. However, disputes arose between the parties. The first respondent’s further case is that she has no means to maintain herself and that the petitioner has got sufficient means to pay maintenance to her. It is alleged that the petitioner herein has been doing money lending business and gets at least Rs.5,000/- per month only by way of interest and also an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards rent from the house property in Secunderabad. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was compromise between the parties and in pursuance of said compromise, a compromise deed was executed and signed by both the parties. It is also submitted that in pursuance of said compromise, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to th first respondent. In support of his contention, he has also filed Xerox copy of receipt dated 10.03.2007 and also a copy of the agreement dated 10.03.2007. It is also submitted that subsequently, the petitioner herein filed FCOP No.277 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad, seeking divorce and that the respondent herein did not appear before the said Court and consequently, the petition was allowed dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. However, records shows that the first respondent subsequently filed an application to set aside t h e ex parte order in FCOP No.277 of 2007, but the same was dismissed. A reading of the agreement reveals that the petitioners herein and his parents had refunded / repaid Rs.2,50,000/- to the first respondent and to her mother and that all other articles taken from them were returned. Thus, it appears that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Anyhow, the truth or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations cannot be decided in quash proceedings. In view of the above, I hold that there are no grounds to allow the petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is submitted that a direction may be given to the trial Court to dispose of the Maintenance Case at an early date. In view of the same, the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kakinada, is hereby directed to dispose of M.C.No.21 of 2007 as early as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR April 30, 2010 Bvv