HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.R.C. No. 371 of 2005 DATED: 16.04.2010 Between: A. Mohan Kumar .. Petitioner And 1. A. Sheela Rani, W/o.A.Mohan Kumar 2. A. Praveen Kumar, S/o.A.Mohan Kumar 3. The State of A.P. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the Docket Order dated 22.04.2004 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 68 of 2003 in Crl.M.P. No.748 of 2001 in M.C. No. 158 of 1997. The facts are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed M.C. No. 158 of 1997 and the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases/Additional Family Court, Nampally, Hyderabad granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents from date of filing the petition i.e. from 15.09.1997 onwards. According to the respondents, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.32,000/- for the period from 15.09.1997 to 15.06.2001, but has not paid arrears of maintenance of Rs.18,000/- from 16.06.2001 till 31.12.2002. Therefore, the respondents filed a suit in O.S. No. 174 of 1999 seeking maintenance, and the learned Judge, Family, Hyderabad, by his judgment, dated 24.12.2002, partly decreed the suit granting maintenance at Rs.700/- p.m. each from the date of the suit till 31.12.2002, and at Rs.900/- p.m. to the 1st respondent- plaintiff and Rs.800/- p.m. to the 2nd respondent-plaintiff from 01.01.2003 and this includes maintenance granted in M.C. No.158 of 1997 which is to be paid by the petitioner-defendant during the life time of the 1st respondent-plaintiff and till completion of education and securing job to the 2nd respondent-plaintiff or till the 2nd respondent attains age of majority whichever occurs first, and the petitioner has to pay all the arrears due to both the respondents-plaintiffs update by 05.02.2003, but according to the respondents-plaintiffs, the petitioner has not paid single pie. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs filed Crl.M.P. No. 68 of 2003, and the petitioner, in his counter stated that the 2nd respondent-plaintiff becomes major by 04.06.2003 and he is not entitled to any maintenance from that date. The learned Judge passed the impugned Docket Order dated 22.04.2004, ordering attachment of salary of the petitioner and directing the Disbursing Officer – Chief Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Abids, Hyderabad to deduct an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month till payment of Rs.12,500/- and remit it to the 1st respondent-plaintiff’s Bank Account. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant filed the present Criminal Revision Case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defendant contends that the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, without taking into consideration the fact that the respondents filed E.P. No.12 of 2003 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad for execution of Decree in O.S. No.174 of 1999 and obtained attachment of his salary dated 01.09.2003 and a sum of Rs.1640/- per month is being deducted from the month of September, 2003 regularly, passed a cryptic order ordering attachment of salary of the petitioner and directing the Disbursing Officer – Chief Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Abids, Hyderabad to deduct an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month till payment of Rs.12,500/-, as such, he prays that the impugned order may be quashed. Heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a careful analysis of the material, it is clear that even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an amount of Rs.1640/- has been deducted from the petitioner’s salary regularly from September, 2003 onwards, the fact remains that he has not paid the arrears of maintenance granted in O.S. No.174 of 1999 from the date of the suit till August, 2003, which is inclusive of the maintenance granted in M.C. No. 158 of 1997. More so, the petitioner-defendant has not denied the aspect of his liability to pay arrears of maintenance as ordered in the suit. The amount of Rs.1,500/- per month towards maintenance as ordered to be paid by the petitioner till he pays an amount of Rs.12,500/-, is not excess than what was ordered in the suit, but it is only towards the arrears of maintenance that the petitioner could not pay for the period from 01.01.2003 till August, 2003 to his wife and the child. Therefore, the impugned Docket Order, dated 22.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases/Additional Family Court directing the Disbursing Officer to deduct an amount of Rs.1500/- per month till the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.12,500/-, by way of remitting the same to Bank Account of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, in the opinion of this Court, is justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case fails, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. 16th April, 2010 bcj