HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4121 OF 2005 DATE:15-07-2010 BETWEEN Bommineni Koteswara Rao …Petitioner AND Bommineni Venkata Madhavi Latha & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4121 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the orders of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal passed in Crl.R.P.No.56 of 2003, dated 2.6.2005 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner herein questioning the order of maintenance of Rs.1500/- and Rs.500/- per month granted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal to the wife-first respondent and minor daughter- second respondent herein in M.C.No.27 of 2002, dated 24.10.2003 was partly allowed reducing payment of maintenance to Rs.1000/- per month to the wife while upholding Rs.500/- per month to the minor daughter. The factum of marriage between the petitioner and first respondent on 21.5.1998 at Cheerala Town of Prakasam District has not been disputed. It is also not disputed that second respondent herein was born to them during the wedlock. As per the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the petitioner left the company of the first respondent-wife without informing. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the first respondent-wife who left the company of the petitioner-husband without informing and that the petitioner has also stated in his evidence that he is ready and willing to tack back the first respondent to his company to live happily. But whereas, the first respondent-wife stated that the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with another woman and has been continuing the said intimacy and therefore, she is reluctant to join the company of the petitioner. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence brought on record, concurrently held that the petitioner herein is residing with another woman, that no prudent wife can agree to live with the husband who is living with another woman and therefore, the first respondent has genuinely withdrawn from the company of the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the revisional court awarded the maintenance to the respondents as referred to above. This court does not see any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below while awarding maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 15, 2010 Tsr.