THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6404 of 2008 DATED: 29-04-2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order, dated 10-06-2008, in Crl.R.P.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereby the order, dated 03-01-2007, in M.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole is partly modified. The brief facts are that the respondents 1 & 2 herein, being the wife and son respectively, filed M.C.No.22 of 2005 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance @ Rs.3000/- each per month. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole having considered the evidence on record, awarded maintenance @ Rs.2000/- each per month. As against the same, the petitioner-husband approached the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole and filed Crl.R.P.No.9 of 2007 and the learned Sessions Judge having accepted that the 1st respondent- wife is having some income, however as the same is not sufficient to maintain herself reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/- to the wife and from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1500/- to the 2nd respondent-son. The same is questioned in this petition. Having considered the submissions and also the orders impugned, this Court is satisfied that the 1st respondent-wife is having some income but that income, even according to the learned District Judge, is not sufficient for her and her child to live comfortably. In fact, the said income of the 1st respondent alone prompted the learned District Judge to reduce the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1500/- to the 2nd respondent respectively. When the Courts below concurrently held that the respondents 1 & 2 herein are unable to maintain themselves and that the petitioner-husband is having sufficient means and is not maintaining the respondents 1 & 2, this Court is of the view that the said concurrent finding cannot not be interfered with. This petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 29th April, 2010. Tsy