IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 OF 2010 Between: Pogaku Achaiah … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & 2 others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the second respondent and father of the third respondent. The Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Narsampet, in M.C.No.14 of 2002 granted Rs.600/- per month towards maintenance to the third respondent/minor child and rejected claim of the second respondent/wife for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2008, filed by the respondents 2 and 3 against order of the Magistrate before the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, the Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to each of the respondents 2 and 3. 2. In this revision petition, it is contended for the petitioner that as per Ex.D2-Receipt, the petitioner paid Rs.55,000/- to the second respondent while granting divorce to her in the presence of elders. According to the petitioner, the said amount was paid towards permanent alimony to the second respondent. Ex.D2 does not describe under what head the said amount was paid by the petitioner to the second respondent. The lower revisional Court, in my opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the said amount was paid by the petitioner to the second respondent towards repayment of dowry amount. Assuming that the said amount was paid towards permanent alimony, that will not disentitle the second respondent to claim maintenance in case she is not possessing the said amount by the date of filing of the petition before the Magistrate. There cannot be estoppel against criminal law remedy. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per Ex.D3 arrangement, the petitioner agreed to give one-fourth of his salary to the minor third respondent. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Sessions Court to the minor is not in any way contrary to the said undertaking given by the petitioner in Ex.D3. 4. It is contended for the petitioner that the second respondent is possessing 30 guntas i.e., 75 cents of wet land as is evident from Ex.D4-Copy of No.3 Adangal/Pahani and that therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Though Ex.D4 shows that the second respondent is possessing 30 guntas of land by way of purchase, it does not reveal as to what is the income therefrom. In the absence of any proof of income from that land, it cannot be said that the second respondent is disentitled for maintenance. The amount of maintenance granted by the lower revisional Court to the second respondent is Rs.1,500/- per month which works out at Rs.50/- per day. 5. As per claim of the respondents 2 and 3 before the lower revisional Court, they have limited their claim to Rs.1,000/- per month. It can be seen from ground No.4 as well as prayer (a) contained in grounds of revision in Crl.R.C.No.13 of 2006. Inspite of it, the lower revisional Court granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month over and above claim of the respondents 2 and 3, which is not permissible in law. 6. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed altering maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- per month to Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the respondents 2 and 3 from the petitioner. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 24, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 OF 2010 August 24, 2010 KL