IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2010 Between: M. Rameshchandra Dutt … PETITIONER And State of Andhra Pradesh and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the second respondent. He questions order, dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, in M.C.No.3 of 2009, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. There is no dispute between the parties about the relationship as husband and wife. Admittedly, both the parties are living separately. It is contended by the petitioner that the second respondent herself left his company and that therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. As the matter now stands, there is no dispute that on report given by the second respondent case was booked against the petitioner and his family members for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. There is also no dispute that the petitioner filed divorce petition against the second respondent and it is pending. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the petitioner intended to take back the second respondent. Having regard to pendency of the above matters between the parties, there is no possibility of reunion between them. 2. The second respondent contended that she is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner has been working in logistic division of Reliance Company. The petitioner contends that after registration of criminal case under Section 498A I.P.C., he was removed from service. The petitioner did not produce any documents to show removal of himself from service. According to the second respondent, the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Since it is a matter, which is within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner, it is for him to prove his salary by filing necessary certificates given by his employer. As against claim of Rs.10,000/- per month, the lower Court granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. There are no irregularities or illegalities or infirmities in the order passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 03, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1392 OF 2010 August 03, 2010