IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETTENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.122 OF 2009 Between: Ginjupali Srinivas … PETITIONER And Ginjupalli Nalini Kumari and others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.122 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The revision petitioner, who is husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent, is a co-producer of two Telugu films, namely, ‘Style’ and ‘Evadigola Vadide’. After obtaining divorce from his first wife, the petitioner married the first respondent as his second wife and both of them lived together and gave birth to the second respondent. Since some time past, both the parties are living separately. It is stated that the petition filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights against the first respondent, was dismissed by the lower Court. The first and second respondents filed M.C.No.3 of 2008 before the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The lower Court by order dated 24.09.2008 granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- per month to the first and second respondents respectively from the petitioner. 2. In this revision petition, the petitioner mainly opposed for granting of maintenance to the first respondent on the ground that she is an earning member. RW.3 is the Branch Manager, India Info Line, Share Market, Guntur. He filed Ex.B2 - Salary Certificate to the effect that the first respondent has been working in that office since 21.01.2008 and getting gross salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. There is no evidence to show that prior to 21.01.2008 the first respondent was working anywhere else much less from the date of her marriage with the petitioner in the year 2004. Both the parties are living separately since October, 2005. When the first respondent took up some odd job for her sustenance long after she was necked out by the petitioner, the same cannot be taken into consideration by judging income of the first respondent. The lower Court observed that the Supreme Court also held that while wife earning something after she is deserted by her husband, it cannot be considered as her source of income, as it is duty of the husband to maintain his wife. Even if the amount of Rs.4,500/- is taken into consideration, it is not sufficient for the first respondent to live honourably as wife of a cine producer. I do not find any valid reasons to disturb amount of maintenance granted by the lower Court to the first respondent. The second respondent being minor child, is certainly entitled for maintenance from the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 19, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.122 OF 2009 July 19, 2010