IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No: 228 of 2007 Between: Dr. G.Babu Rao. .. PETITIONER AND Smt G. Sony Neelima and others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, in Crl.M.P.No.160 of 2006 in F.C.O.P.No.91 of 2006, by which, the lower Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per month to wife and Rs.1,000/-per month each to two minor children, making a total sum of Rs.4,000/- in all. But, in paragraph 7 of the lower Court’s order, the maintenance awarded to the first respondent was wrongly typed as Rs.3,000/- contrary to the figure mentioned in last lines of paragraph 6 of the order. Unfortunately, it was left uncorrected by the lower Court. There is no dispute that the petitioner is husband of the first respondent and that respondents 2 and 3 are minor children born during their lawful wedlock. The petitioner is working as Lecturer and is admittedly drawing more than Rs.16,000/-per month as gross salary. There is also no dispute that the petitioner and the first respondent are living separately from each other and the minor children are living with the first respondent/mother. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that under Section 125 sub-section(4) of Cr.P.C., the wife is not entitled for maintenance if she refused to live with her husband without sufficient reason. The petitioner has absolutely no ground of attack against the order passed by the lower Court awarding maintenance to two minor children, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein. The petitioner in his counter filed in the lower Court stated that he is ready and willing to take his wife. It is further contended that the wife is refusing to join the petitioner by putting forth unreasonable demands and that the petitioner got issued a notice to the wife calling upon her to join him. On the other hand, it is stated that the said notice was given by the petitioner after one and half years of separation and with a view to take it as defence for any claim of the wife for maintenance etc. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife to show his bonafides. At any rate, the lower Court granted interim maintenance only leaving the matter left open to consider respective contentions of both the parties, on merits, at the final stage after due enquiry, wherein oral and documentary evidence will be let in by both the parties. Since the wife is living separately from her husband and minor children are with the wife/first respondent and since the petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain his wife and children and since respondents 1 to 3 have no other source for living, the lower Court is justified in awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/-per month each to respondents 2 and 3. The lower Court, having regard to respective contentions of both the parties in their pleadings and all the attending circumstances, came to a right conclusion that there is a prima facie case of neglect of respondents 1 to 3 by the petitioner. I do not find any error either on facts or in law in the order passed by the lower court. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date:18.11.2009 sj