THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.573 OF 2008 Dated : 18.01.2010 Between : Sikhinam Annama Raju ….. Petitioner/Respondent a n d Sikhinam Swarna Kumari & others ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.573 OF 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-respondent seeking to quash the order, dated 30.11.2007 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at Tenali in Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2006. 2) Heard. 3) By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge had confirmed the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repally, in Crl.M.P.No.1543 of 2004 in M.C.No.13 of 2003 wherein the petitioner herein was directed to pay the enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.1,500/- to the second respondent. 4) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband is that the petitioner is drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,060/- as seen from the material on record. As such, awarding maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month is highly unjustified. 5) A perusal of the material on record reveals that as per the salary certificate dated 04.01.2006 the petitioner was getting net salary of Rs.4,060/- and there was unofficial deduction of Rs.1,800/- per month towards Andhra Bank loan and the petitioner was also getting an amount of Rs.366/- per month towards interim relief, which goes to show that he is going to get some pay revision arrears. 6) In case, the petitioner-husband take loans and pays most of his salary towards discharge of his loans, he cannot contend that he has no income to pay the maintenance and what has to be taken into consideration is his gross salary and compulsory deductions like income tax, etc. But, in the present case, no such deductions are there and on the other hand even as on the date of the impugned order, the petitioner was to get certain pay revision arrears and now another pay revision is due to be implemented by which the gross salary of the petitioner would go up substantially and he will get arrears too. In such circumstances, the maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/- awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court by no stretch of imagination can be said to be unreasonable. 7) In the circumstances, I see no merits in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 18th January, 2010 SUR