HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3567 OF 2010 Date:20.04.2010 Between: Kondaparthy Narasimha Chary …..Petitioner And: The State of A.P, through Public Prosecutor And 2 others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3567 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent and father of minor third respondent. This petition arises out of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kamareddy in M.C. No.34 of 2007 granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent and Rs.1,500/- per month to the 3rd respondent by order dated 22.06.2008. The same was confirmed by VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy in Crl.Revision Petition No.24 of 2009 by order dated 06.03.2010. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there are no justifiable grounds for the 2nd respondent to live separately from the petitioner and claim maintenance in spite of compromise order in O.P. No.16 of 2006 and that the 2nd respondent is working as teacher and earning Rs.6,000/- per month and that the petitioner has no capacity to pay the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents 2 and 3 as he has got other commitments and that both the Courts below failed to appreciate evidence let in by the petitioner herein. All the above questions raised by the petitioner’s counsel are those of fact. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into questions of fact and re-assess evidence let in by both the parties. Both the Courts below after considering evidence let in by both the parties and after considering case law on the subject, came to right conclusion in favour of the destitute wife and minor child and awarded the maintenance. Entertaining of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is virtually entertaining a second revision, which is not permissible in law. Having regard to findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below. 3) In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. April 20, 2010 KSH