IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.727 OF 2008 Between:- Badi Subbarami Reddy …Petitioner A n d Badi Neeraja and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.727 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to assail the order dated 10-12-2007 in Criminal Revision Petition No.76 of 2007, on the file of the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, wherein the said revision petition was dismissed, confirming the order dated 12-07-2007 in M.C.No.12 of 2007, on the file of the IV-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore, granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the first respondent herein, the wife, and Rs.500/- per month to the second respondent herein, the son, of the petitioner herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner married the first respondent and out of lawful wedlock, the second respondent is born to them. The petitioner and the first respondent lived happily for some time and thereafter there has been estrangement between them. According to the first respondent, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioner and his parents over the demand for additional dowry. She filed a complaint against the petitioner and others alleging offences under Section 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the first respondent has withdrawn from the matrimonial society without any justifiable cause and, therefore, he filed O.P.No.28 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed and in spite of it, the first respondent has not rejoined the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the first respondent and her son, the second respondent, have been residing away from the petitioner. Both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, held that the respondents have every reason to reside away from the petitioner, notwithstanding the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in view of the apprehension of danger to her life. The finding of the Courts below that the first respondent is justified in living separately from the petitioner and is, therefore, entitled to claim maintenance for herself and her son, the second respondent, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 5. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, there is nothing on record to show that the first respondent has got any property or other means of her own to support her and her son. On the other hand, the petitioner is admittedly working as a typist in the Law College at Nellore and he is having landed property and joint family house and is also running a type institute as well. The petitioner seeks to contend that he is drawing a salary of only Rs.1,200/- per month and he filed Ex.R-3 salary certificate to that effect. As rightly observed by the Courts below, the petitioner was drawing the said amount of Rs.1,200/- per month as a part-time typist and, therefore, he had ample time and occasion to earn otherwise and support the family. Having regard to the evidence available on record to the effect that the petitioner is having landed property and joint family house and is also running a type institute, it cannot be held that the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month awarded as maintenance to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the son, is excessive or unreasonable. Having regard to the social status of the parties and the basic needs and requirements for a decent livelihood, it is considered that the amount granted is neither excessive nor unreasonable. 6. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate and as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Interim suspension granted on 11-02-2008 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th July, 2010. Lrkm.