THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.1277 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Maintenance Case No.100 of 2000 claiming maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent and her minor children from the petitioner herein. The case of the respondents is that the marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent was performed on 23-10-1994 and that they were blessed with two children i.e., respondents 2 and 3 and subsequently the petitioner used to harass the first respondent to bring additional dowry and the first respondent has reliably learnt that the petitioner had illicit contacts with another woman. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his family members beat the first respondent and finally necked her out of their house. The petitioner herein filed counter denying the allegations made by the respondents herein and further averred that the first respondent left his company without any reasonable cause and that she had foisted a false case against him in the Police Station and that she never acted as a dutiful wife and that she had put him to mental torture. The respondents’ case is that the petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner’s case is that he is only getting Rs.1,700/- per month. The Family Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3 from the date of the petition and directed the petitioner to pay all the arrears amount within three months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1620 of 2004. This Court allowed the revision and consequently the order passed by the Family Court on 04-09- 2003 was set aside, subject to condition that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to each of the respondents herein till the disposal of the Maintenance Case and the case was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses already examined and to adduce evidence on his behalf and any further evidence on behalf of the petitioners in the M.C. It was also specifically directed that if the petitioner fails to pay the interim maintenance even for one month, the trial should be stopped and final orders in M.C. have to be passed on the basis of the material available on record. The petitioner was directed to pay the said amount on or before 10th of every month. The lower Court passed the impugned orders on 17-06-2009 holding that though the matter is coming up for cross-examination of the witnesses, the petitioner has been paying the interim maintenance as directed by this Court (High Court) but he is not prepared to cross-examine the witnesses and that he has been protracting the matter and holding so, basing on the material available, the lower Court allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and an ex parte order has been passed against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has been complying with the directions of this Court and paying the interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been protracting the litigation to deny the maintenance amount to the respondents. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? It is always better if the matters are disposed of on merits. Whatever the reason it may be, it is clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 are not cross-examined till this date and that the petitioner is not given an opportunity to adduce the evidence. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall pay the total arrears of due amount as per the earlier direction of this Court within a period of 30 days from today. The amount already paid by him shall be given credit. (ii) The lower Court shall fix a date within 30 days from the date of payment of the total arrears of maintenance to the respondents and shall direct the respondents to produce P.Ws.1 to 3 on that day. The petitioner shall cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3 on that day and shall not take adjournment. If he takes adjournment, for each adjournment the petitioner has to pay Rs.1,000/- to the respondents in addition to the maintenance amount ordered to be paid by this Court. After the closure of the evidence of the respondents, the petitioner shall adduce all his evidence within a period of 30 days. If he takes further adjournment, for each adjournment, the petitioner has to pay Rs.1,000/- to the respondents in addition to the maintenance amount ordered by this Court. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible. The petitioner shall continue to pay the interim maintenance as ordered by this Court till the conclusion of the proceedings on or before 10th day of every month without fail. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 19th November, 2009. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.1277 of 2009 Date : 19-11-2009 Between : Maddada Ramakrishna Prasad .. Petitioner And Muddada Bhagya Lakshmi and three others .. Respondents