HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3900 OF 2007 DATE:02.12.2009 Between: Moinuddin …….Petitioner And: Smt Nasreen Sulthana and 3 others. ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3900 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 17.05.2007 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in R.P.No.78 of 2006 by which the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Excise Cases, Mahabubnagar in M.C.No.29 of 2006 was confirmed. The respondents 1 to 3 are wife and minor children of the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 filed petition before the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of them from the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner and the 1st respondent have been living separately since prior to filing of maintenance case before the Magistrate. Both the courts below after considering entire evidence let in by both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner neglected to maintain the respondents 1 to 3 who are unable to maintain themselves. No valid grounds are urged before this court to come to a different conclusion with regard to entitlement of maintenance by the respondents 1 to 3. The Magistrate after taking into all the circumstances of the case awarded maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to each of the respondents 1 to 3. This court by way of interim order directed the petitioner to pay total sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3 towards maintenance pending disposal of this criminal petition. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower courts is excessive and prayed for at least confining maintenance amount to a total sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for all the respondents 1 to 3. It is contended that the petitioner is getting salary of only Rs.2,989/- and that the petitioner has to maintain is aged mother, brothers and two un-married sisters. There is no dispute that the petitioner is working as Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. His salary cannot be Rs.2,989/- per month. His gross salary is more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from that, it is contended that the petitioner has got Ac.10.00 cents of agricultural land from which he is getting income and that he is also running a Van on hire. The respondents 1 to 3 did not lead any documentary proof for the same. In any event total amount of maintenance granted by the courts below is Rs.800/- per month to each of the respondents 1 to 3 i.e., Rs.2,400/- per month in total. Having regard to salary being drawn by the petitioner as Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C, the said amount of maintenance cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to reduce quantum of maintenance in this case. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J Date:02.12.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3900 OF 2007 DATE:02.12.2009 Gk.