IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.863 OF 2009 Between: Vodapalli Eshwar … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & 2 others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.863 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner who is husband of the second respondent and father of the third respondent questions granting of interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, in Crl.M.P.No.64 of 2008 in M.C.No.6 of 2008, by order dated 03.11.2008. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. There is no dispute that both the parties are living separately from each other. 2. According to the second respondent, she was harassed by the petitioner and his family members and she was demanded to pay additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and she was thrown out of the house as she expressed her inability to bring additional dowry from her parents. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the second respondent had voluntarily left company of the petitioner without any cause and that he is ready and willing to receive the respondents 2 and 3 and maintain them. Admittedly, no steps are taken by the petitioner by way of filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the second respondent or for custody of the third respondent. It is a matter to be decided by the lower Court whether the offer made by the petitioner is bonafide or not, after due enquiry at the time of final hearing of the maintenance case. It is contended that the petitioner has no much income to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the respondents 2 and 3. It is stated that the third respondent is suffering from lung cancer and needs fortnight treatment with costly medicines. It is stated that the petitioner is an unqualified medical practitioner. 3. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that quantum of interim maintenance granted by the lower Court is not in any way excessive. 4. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the maintenance case as early as possible, preferably within three months. Time of six weeks is granted for payment of arrears of interim maintenance. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 06, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.863 OF 2009 August 06, 2010 KL