IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1 5 0 0 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Anitha Agarwal, D/o Narender Lal Agarwal, Aged about 41 years, 0cc. Household & unemployed, R/o.H.No. 4-2-95, Narender Market, Badi Chowdi, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner V/s. R. Ram Bilas Agarwal, s/o Rajaram Agarwal, Aged about 47 years, 0cc. Business, R/o. Flat No. 403, Vijayatha Kamala Residency, SD Road, Secunderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. Sai Babu Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. Naseeb Afshan for R-1 Addl. Public Prosecutor for R-2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1 5 0 0 OF 2009 O R D E R: Heard Sri K. Sai Babu, the counsel representing the petitioner and Ms. Naseeb Afsha, the learned counsel representing the first respondent and Additional Public Prosecutor representing the second respondent. 2. The order under challenge reads as hereunder: “The petitioner claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent averring that he is a businessman earning Rs.1 lakh per month. The respondent stated a consent decree of divorce was obtained by the parties in the Addl. Family Court, Secunderabad in OP.No.259 of 2008. He also pleaded an agreement to live separately from 16-11- 1998. He mentioned some of the terms of the said agreement in page 2 of the counter. The said document is marked as Ex.R-1. One of the terms of the agreement is that the wife has financial capability and she will not seek any maintenance from the husband. The matter is coming for the evidence of the respondent. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that granting interim maintenance is not proper. Hence the petition is dismissed.” 3. The counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.255 of 2008 and also decision of this Court in CHITTI PRASADA RAO & ORS. V/s. CHITTI ASIRIPOLAMMA AND ANR[1] ., and the decision of the Supreme Court in SMT. SAVITRI V/s. GOVIND SINGH RAWAT [2] . 4. The counsel for the first respondent filed a detailed affidavit narrating several facts. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits of the matter. However, this Court set aside the order under challenge, as the same is cryptic order especially in the light of the decision relied upon and the order under challenge cannot be sustained and the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court to hear both parties afresh and pass appropriate orders at the earliest point of time, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________________ JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA. 15-03-2010. I s L N B : Furnish CC tomorrow. B/o I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1 5 0 0 of 2010 Circulation Entry No. 3 8 Date: 15-03-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L [1] ) 1993 (1) ALT (Criminal) 421 [2] ) AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT –984 = 1986 Crl.L.J. 41