IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1513 OF 2010 Between: M. Kanaiahlal … PETITIONER And Mrs. M. Jayashree and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1513 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent. Aggrieved by order, dated 06.01.2010, passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in M.P.No.718 of 2009 in M.C.No.164 of 2009, the petitioner seeks to file this revision petition. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute that both the parties are living separately. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner filed O.P.No.532 of 2009 against the first respondent for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Hyderabad, and that when that Court called the parties for counseling, the first respondent did not attend for counseling and that it shows the attitude of the first respondent towards the petitioner. At this stage, it has to be noted that admittedly the first respondent filed case in Crime No.187 of 2008 against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. in Ghansi Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad and it is pending investigation. Having regard to pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner alleging cruelty and harassment to the wife, it cannot be said that there are no grounds for the wife to live separately from the petitioner. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Tax Consultant. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Whereas the petitioner contends that he is earning Rs.3,000/- per month by giving tuitions in the house. The amount of interim maintenance granted by the lower Court is Rs.3,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor child. The amounts granted are not in any way excessive. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 31, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1513 OF 2010 August 31, 2010