IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Friday, the 17th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C.No. 1281 of 2011 Between: Lingineni Veeranjanyulu …Petitioner and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No. 1281 of 2011 Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is admittedly the husband of the second respondent and both are aged couple. The second respondent filed maintenance case i.e., M.C.No. 113 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000-00 per month. After contest the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Vijayawada (Trial Court) by its order dated:1st June, 2010 concluded that the husband is getting pension of Rs.7,000-00 per month and fixed the monthly maintenance to be granted at Rs.1,500-00. That order is now challenged. One of the grounds raised is that earlier amounts paid were not taken into account and the other ground is that the trial court fixed the maintenance from the date of petition i.e., 16-8-2005 without giving reasons. May be, the second ground is a tenable one. It may however be noted that both parties are aged i.e., husband is now aged 63 years and the wife is 58 years. Having regard to their ages, I am of the opinion that this court should not interfere in this matter by exercising its discretion even on the second ground. The other reasons given by the trial court for awarding maintenance cannot be said to be perverse and are based on evidence. Hence there is no ground to entertain this revision. The revision case is accordingly dismissed. 3. Smt. B. Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the petitioner cannot pay the arrears of maintenance in six monthly instalments as ordered by the trial court and she requests for more time. In the circumstances, the petitioner will immediately, within one week from today, deposit a sum of Rs.6,000-00 (Rs. Six thousands only) towards four months maintenance before the trial court and thereafter he is permitted to deposit the arrears amount in six equal monthly installments, as ordered by the trial court. I am of the opinion that the above condition can be imposed even without notice to the second respondent, as it is beneficial to her, than the condition imposed by the trial court. However with regard to future maintenance the petitioner shall pay the same to the second respondent on or before 10th day of every succeeding month. On deposit of Rs.6,000-00 the wife is permitted to withdraw the same. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 17, 2011. *BVS Note: Furnish CC by Monday. (BO) BVS.