THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 1595 and 1982 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.1595 of 2009 is filed seeking to quash order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned VI- Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry, in Criminal Revision Petition No.168 of 2007. Criminal Petition No.1982 of 2009 is filed seeking to quash the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the VI- Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry in Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2008. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.168 of 2007 and 27 of 2008 were filed against order dated 23.10.2007, passed in Maintenance Case No.335 of 2004, on the file of learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Because the subject matter of these petitions is same, both the petitions are clubbed together for disposal by this common order. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1982 of 2009 are the respondents in Crl.R.P.No.27 of 2008 and the petitioners in M.C.No.335 of 2004. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1594 of 2009 are the petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.168 of 2007 and also in M.C.No.335 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, I refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the Maintenance Case from here onwards. M.C. No.335 of 2004 was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to the petitioners 1 and 2 against the respondent on the ground that the 1st petitioner happened to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the 2nd petitioner happened to be their daughter and, without any manner of right, the respondent deserted and neglected them failing to provide necessary maintenance to them, having got sufficient means to do so, where as the petitioners got no capacity to maintain themselves. On contest, the maintenance case was allowed in part, directing the respondent to pay Rs.500/- each with effect from the date of the petition to the petitioners 1 and 2. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent filed the Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2008, and the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No.168 of 2007. The Criminal Revision Petition No.168 of 2007 was dismissed confirming the order dated 23.10.2007 in the maintenance case whereas the Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2008 was partly allowed by modifying the order in the maintenance case with regards to the payment of maintenance amount ‘from the date of petition’ to one payable ‘from the date of order’, whereas aggrieved by the orders passed in both the Criminal Revision Petitions, the present criminal petitions have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that actually considering the evidence, the Sessions Court modified the order to the effect that the maintenance amounts awarded were to be paid from the date of order and further before the Sessions Court, the respondent was called and was examined with reference to his means and then he admitted that he was having four portioned house and was receiving rents therefrom, but he was not able to say about the quantum of rents he was receiving and he also admitted that they were having another house in which they were residing and was doing milk business there, but he was not aware of the income therefrom, but those aspects were not considered by the Sessions Court and emphatically neither the respondent nor his witnesses was/ or were examined to substantiate their claim and hence, the maintenance amounts awarded are to be modified suitably. She also contends that the maintenance amounts should be awarded with effect from the date of petition. In the orders passed in the Criminal Revision Petition, the said evidence was not considered by the Sessions Court. Therefore, it appears that important material available was not considered by the Sessions Court and without considerting that evidence, it is not proper to dispose of the revisions finally and hence, the matter is remitted to the Sessions Court for disposing of the same considering the question of payment of maintenance amounts. Further because the respondent is not questioning the orders passed against him in the revision, accordingly the respondent has to pay the maintenance already awarded till and subject to the final disposal of the matter. In the result, the criminal petitions are disposed of with the above direction observing that the revisional Court has to dispose of the matter independently and suitably within two months of receiving a copy of this order as the matter is old. _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 26th December, 2011 KSM