THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6026 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 Between: Talagadadeevi Gopala Krishna Murthy .. Petitioner And Talagadadeevi Rama Devi and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6026 of 2008 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) aggrieved by the order in M.C.No.2 of 2007 dated 23.10.2007 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, which was confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.70 of 2007 dated 13.06.2008 by the Special Sessions Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly urged that the Courts below committed gross mistake in not accepting Ex.R-1 salary certificate issued by a qualified doctor and a retired Director of Health Services on the ground that the author of it was not examined but as per Ex.R-1 the petitioner was working as part-time Compounder on contractual wages of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- towards travel expenditure. He further urged that the petitioner has neither landed nor house property in Machilipatnam and the same was certified by the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam. He further urged that the certificate of his wife, the 1st respondent herein, shows that she gets twice the amount, which the husband gets and there is no evidence in the lower Court that the petitioner refused to neglect her, on the contrary the respondent-wife herself neglected the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled for any maintenance. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents while submitting his reply arguments urged that the amount of maintenance granted by the lower Courts is very meagre in the present day-to-day life. It is his further argument that the petitioner is a qualified person in Homeopathy and getting Rs.1,000/- as per Ex.R-1 cannot be taken into consideration and the same is only to avoid maintenance payable to his wife and child and, therefore, the finding of the Courts below be justified. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to set aside the findings of the two Courts below? In the first lower Court, the wife examined as P.W.1 and respondent-petitioner as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R-1. Ex.R-1 is a certificate issued by the doctor evidencing the income of R.W.1. As seen from the order of the learned Magistrate, Ex.R-1 shows that the petitioner/respondent is receiving only Rs.1,500/- per month and the author of Ex.R-1 is not examined. It is also the finding of the lower Court that the respondent admitted that he has got ancestral properties. As seen from the evidence of R.W.1 in his cross- examination he stated that his father worked as Deputy Tahsildar and retired and he owned a house property at Machilipatnam. He also categorically stated that he is the third son to his parents among four brothers and his elder brothers are employees and they all owned a house at Machilipatnam. So, admittedly the petitioner had an ancestral property at Machilipatnam. It is also the evidence that he completed DM & HS after his degree in B.Sc. on the date of marriage. He also admitted that the 2nd respondent herein was born to him on 27.11.2006 at Mylavaram. In this case, there is clear evidence on record to show that the petitioner herein, being the husband and father, neglected and refused to maintain the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered all the aspects of the case and correctly came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to the 1st respondent herein and Rs.400/- to the 2nd respondent herein. In any view of the matter, the finding of the Court below, in my view, is just and reasonable and I see no grounds either to interfere, modify or set aside the orders of the lower Courts below. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 16-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6026 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 MR