THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2190 OF 2009 Date: 27-01-2010 Between: K. Srinivasa Chakravarthy. - - - Petitioner And 1. Smt. K. Vasuprada. 2. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2190 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is filed challenging the Order of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Sessions Judge’), passed in Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2009, dated 16-12-2009, confirming the Orders of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Magistrate’) passed in Criminal M.P. No.959 of 2009, in D.V.C. No.5 of 2009 on 26-08-2009, wherein the learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the second respondent/State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge directing to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) p.m. is excessive and exorbitant. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have ordered the payment of interim maintenance from the date of petition. It is also submitted that there are certain e-mails, which go to show the character of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner’s monthly salary is Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) and that he is working as Financial Manager in Bharathi Airtel Company in Chennai and the same is not in dispute and in view of the financial status of the parties, the petitioner can pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner has stolen the e-mail password of the first respondent and that forwarded e-mails to his e-mail I.D. and that when the contents of the e-mails were tampered and modified from 16-06- 2008 to 13-07-2008. All these allegations will be decided only after a full-fledged trial and not at this stage. Having regard to the status of the parties, I consider just and necessary to suspend the impugned order on condition of petitioner paying an amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) p.m. to the first respondent and the petitioner depositing half of the total arrears within a period of sixty (60) days from today. On such deposit, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the petitioner. The learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, may dispose of the matter as early as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since both the parties herein are highly qualified and coming from respectable families, we hope and trust that they will settle the disputes amicably or before the Lok-adalat instead of moving around the Courts for years together. With these observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 27-01-2010. DSH