HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8332 OF 2009 DATED.29-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 30-06-2009 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.44 of 2008, on the file of the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III) Miryalaguda modifying order dated 19-05-2008 passed in Maintenance Case No.21 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 2. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein are the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner herein is the respondent in the Maintenance case and the petitioner No.1 in the maintenance case is the mother of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case hereafter. 3. The Maintenance Case was filed by the Petitioner No.1 on behalf of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- p.m. each to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda. On contest, the Maintenance Case was partly allowed awarding Rs.1,500/- p.m. to them towards their maintenance against the respondent from the date of order i.e. from 19- 05-2008, against which, the Criminal Revision Petition was preferred, which was disposed of by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,250/- p.m. each to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3. 4. Briefly the claim of the Petitioners is as follows : The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were born to them during their marital life and without any manner of right the respondent deserted and neglected them. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that his salary at the time of filing the maintenance case was Rs.8,000/- p.m. and out of that he had to pay monthly installment of Rs.2,500/- towards house loan jointly obtained by him and his wife and the balance had to be utilized for the maintenance of his parents and he has been staying in a house jointly constructed by him and his wife and apart from that he has to maintain himself and therefore granting the amount of Rs.1,250/- p.m. each to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 is on the higher side and accordingly it may be reduced. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 7. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to reduce the maintenance amount as prayed for? 8. I have gone through the record. It is the bounden duty of the respondent as a responsible father to take care of the education, maintenance and other necessities to bring up his children i.e. the petitioners Nos.2 and 3, in all aspects, subject to the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, in the present day circumstances awarding the maintenance of Rs.1,250/- p.m. to the petitioners nos.2 245 and 3 is not high. In fact, it is not at all sufficient for their maintenance. Taking into consideration the salary of the respondent and also his encumbrances referred above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the revisional Court. Further, his income might have been increased by now. Further, unless the orders passed by the Courts below are perverse or not supported by any evidence the question of interfering with the same does not arise at all. Hence, I find that there are no merits in the petition and ultimately the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:29-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8332 OF 2009 December, 29, 2011 DSH