THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5487 of 2007 3rd March, 2010 Between :- Chava Venkata Siva Reddy .. Petitioner And Chava Sumathi and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5487 of 2007 ORDER:- Heard the Counsel on record. 2. The present criminal petition is filed as against an order made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal Revision Petition No.83/2006 dt.21-8-2007. The said Crl.R.P. was filed as against an order made in M.C.No.23/2004 on the file of the Principal J.F.C.M., Bhongir. 3. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. Originally old M.C.No.9/2004 was renumbered as M.C.No.23/2004 on the file of the Principal J.F.C.M., Bhongir. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said M.C., under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively for the monthly maintenance. It is the case of the 1st respondent herein – the 1st petitioner in the M.C., that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, the 1st respondent in the M.C., and out of the wedlock the 2nd petitioner in the M.C., the 2nd respondent herein, was born. The said marriage was celebrated on 16-6-1999 at Bandakindipally of Bommalaramaram as per Hindu Rites and Customs and further several facts had been narrated. The petitioner herein as respondent in the M.C., filed counter and resisted the same. 4. The Court of first instance on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, R.Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs.R.1 and R.2, having formulated the point for consideration at para 10, recorded reasons at paras 11 to 26 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein, the 1st petitioner in the M.C., is entitled to Rs.2,000/- per month and likewise, the 2nd respondent herein, the 2nd petitioner in the M.C., is entitled to Rs.1,000/- per monthly from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of Criminal R.P.No.83/2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the Revisional Court at para 4 had formulated the point for consideration – whether the order of the lower Court in awarding maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent, do wants any interference? The learned Judge having recorded reasons at paras 5, 6, 7 and 8, ultimately came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances the order of the Court of first instance being just and proper, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with and accordingly the criminal R.P.no.83/2006 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition was filed. 5. This Court had carefully gone through the reasons recorded by the Court of first instance and also the reasons recorded by the Court of Session in the criminal revision already referred to supra. This Court is thoroughly satisfied that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded, there is no illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference. Certain submissions were made about the amounts being kept in deposit in joint account; liberty is given to the petitioner to agitate his rights, if any, in this regard. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 3rd March, 2010 NOTE: C.C. in three days (B/o.smr)