IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1175 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Erigi Prem Das S/o. Rama Chandru …. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1175 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the respondent in Criminal M.P. No.325 of 2010 in M.C. No.40 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda, questions order dated 23-04-2010 by which the lower Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents 2 to 4, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the respondents 2 to 4, they are legally wedded wife and minor sons of the petitioner and the petitioner neglected to maintain them having sufficient means to maintain them. The petitioner filed counter in the lower court, totally denying every fact. According to the second respondent, the petitioner married her with a dowry of Rs.50,000/-, 4 tolas of gold, 20 tolas of silver and household articles worth about Rs.5,000/-. Perhaps, to avoid liability, the petitioner totally denies each and every fact alleged in the petition. 3. After hearing both parties, the lower court came to conclusion that there is prima facie case relating to relationship between the parties like household card and Rajiv Arogyasri card. Interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the respondents 2 to 4 is very small and it works out at Rs.33/- per day. According to respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner is an agriculturist, having agricultural lands as well as residential house in the village and is earning Rs.12,000/- per month from agriculture. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court passed appropriate order granting interim maintenance to the respondents 2 to 4. I find no circumstances to interfere with the said order passed by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 25, 2010 KTL