THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 112 of 2010 Date: 29.01.2010 Between: L. Madhava Reddy. .. Petitioner And L. Lakshmi Sarada and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 112 of 2010 Order: This revision is directed against the orders dated 12.01.2010 passed in Crl.M.P. No.216 of 2009 in F.C.M.C. No.21 of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. Heard. As seen from the contents of the impugned order, the FCMC No.21 of 2008 was filed by the respondents herein on 18.12.2007 seeking maintenance and it appears that several steps were taken by the Court to secure the presence of the petitioner herein and finally notice was ordered through police and when one police constable, Anantapur tried to serve the notice on the petitioner, the petitioner refused to receive the notice and in view of the same he was set ex parte on 23.11.2009. When the said FCMC was posted for arguments, the petitioner herein filed Crl.MP No.216 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 23.11.2009 passed against him. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and taking into consideration the other circumstances, the lower Court allowed the said petition subject to condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards interim maintenance of the respondents on or before 27.01.2010 and also to file his counter in the main petition before such date and if any one of the above conditions are violated, the petition stands dismissed, and the petition was posted to 27.01.2010. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed this revision. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had no knowledge about the maintenance case and that he is willing to take the respondents back and to maintain them. A reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that when the petitioner was attending the criminal case filed against him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the police personnel obtained his signature forcibly and that he never refused to receive the summons. It is clear that FCMC was filed on 18.12.2007 and the petitioner was set ex parte on 23.11.2009, which itself shows that for about two years summons could not be served on the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was attending the criminal Court. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the maintenance case proceedings. Even the affidavit of the petitioner shows that the police personnel tried to serve summons on him when he came to attend the Court in a criminal case. As far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to take back the respondents herein, is concerned, nothing prevented the petitioner to approach his wife and children and convince them and to lead happy marital life. A reading of the impugned order gives an impression that there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order. The order is passed on a well reasoning. Moreover, a reading of the entire material gives an impression that the petitioner is running a Bar and Restaurant and that he is also doing real estate business. Therefore, the amount directed to be paid by the petitioner towards interim maintenance is neither excessive nor exorbitant. There is no merit in the revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage itself. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Dt. 29.01.2010 Nsr