THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2234 OF 2009 DATED: 12-08-2010 Between Reddy Ameer Basha …Petitioner And 1.State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2234 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order, dated 23-12-2008, in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, in confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandyal, dated 18-03-2008, in M.C.No.31 of 2006, wherein the petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per month to the respondents 2 and 3 herein respectively. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that it is a case where the 2nd respondent herein is able to maintain herself, that she is working as a Teacher and getting Rs.1500/- per month, that the order of granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent is not in accordance with law, that for full and final settlement, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,50,000/- by virtue of an agreement, which was marked as Ex.R8, dated 09-01-2006, that as the petitioner is an unemployee and has no other source of income, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the maintenance case and hence, he prays to set aside the order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that even after the order passed by the trial Court with regard to arrears of maintenance, the same has not been paid, that the salary certificate and agreement, which are Exs.R4 and R8 were denied in the trial Court, that even the persons connected with those documents have not been examined to prove the contents, that the trial court rightly granted maintenance and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 4. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if the husband having means neglect to maintain his wife and child who were unable to maintain, then the Magistrate can grant reasonable amount for their maintenance. The object and purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. If the husband is able-bodied person and even though he has no means to pay the amount, he is bound to maintain wife and children. Therefore, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the child considering the escalation of prices of essential commodities cannot be shown to be on higher side. With regard to person who issued Ex.R4 has not been examined, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that in view of the fact that Ex.R4 has been disputed, some person connected with that document has to be examined to prove the contents. Simply because the document is marked, it does not mean that it has to be accepted as true and correct. Similarly, Ex.R8 has been denied and the persons connected with that documents has to be examined to prove the contents. Therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:12-08-2010 Hsd