THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1952 of 2010 Date:14th December, 2010 Between: K.Jagan Mohan Reddy …Petitioner and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1952 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 01.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.335 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool., whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge suspended the operation of the order dated 02.07.2010 passed in M.C.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears amount. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the children of the petitioner. They are minors and represented by their mother Smt.K.Krishnavenamma. They filed M.C.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. each. The petitioner herein resisted the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 herein by filing counter. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the maintenance application in part granting maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each, by order dated 02.07.2010. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. He also moved Crl.M.P.No.335 of 2010 seeking stay of the order passed in M.C.No.3 of 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing fo the parties, proceeded to allow the petition in part directing the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the arrears amount, by order dated 01.10.2010. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the said order, which reads as hereunder: “5. POINT:- The petitioner herein is admittedly the respondent in M.C.3/2007 in which the lower court ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- for each one of the respondents herein from the date of filing of the petition and the arrears amount to Rs.2,46,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that granting of maintenance from the date of petition is not correct, though petitioner is an advocate getting only limited income in the profession. What ever it may be, once the trial court after recording the evidence grants maintenance by exercising its discretionary power grants maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, the same has to be implemented unless the order is set aside. However, the petitioner being a High Court Advocate and financially in good position cannot escape from the liability. Hence, the orders under revision have to be slightly modified to meet the ends of justice. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears of the amount granted by the trial court from the date of filing of the petition. Further, the petitioner has to pay the maintenance amount as granted by the trial court from the date of the orders regularly to the respondents either by way of depositing the amount into court or sending the demand draft to the respondents directly from the date of this order. On deposit of half of the arrears of amount by the petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security.” The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is paying Rs.1,000/- p.m. each to the respondents 1 and 2 herein as per the order passed in the D.V.C. and the said amount is required to be given due credit in compliance of the order passed by the revisional court in Crl.M.P.No.335 of 2010. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 supported the order impugned in the revision. 6. I have gone through the order passed in M.C.No.3 of 2007 as well as the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.335 of 2010. The learned Magistrate has taken into account the interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- p.m. each to the respondents 1 and 2 herein being paid by the petitioner in D.V.C. case while fixing the maintenance in M.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, proceeded to suspend the order passed in M.C.No.3 of 2007 subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears amount. The interim order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in my considered view, is an equitable order and it does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool is directed to dispose of the Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:14th December, 2010. Cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1952 of 2010 Date:14th December, 2010