THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4232 of 2009 Date:26.8.2010 Between: Munnangi Pamulu. ………...Petitioner. And The State of A.P. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and two others. ……Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4232 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by Munnangi Pamulu under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the orders passed in M.C.No.18 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, dated 29.4.2008 and Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur dated 4.5.2009. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents 1 & 2 herein referred to as wife and daughter. The wife and the daughter filed M.C.No.18 of 2007 against the petitioner herein claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each. The petitioner herein resisted the claim of the wife and the daughter on the ground that the wife owned Ac.0.50 cents of wet land and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing money lending business. To substantiate his case, the wife got examined herself as P.W.1 and the daughter examined as P.W.2 and also examined the father of the husband as P.W.3 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The husband got himself examined as R.W.1 and marked three documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each to the wife and the daughter by an order dated 29.4.2008. The husband filed revision being Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gutnur assailing the order of granting maintenance in M.C.No.18 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of maintenance granted by the trial Court, and, thereby, proceeded to dismiss the revision by order dated 29.4.2008. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the husband to quash the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Revisional Court. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife owned Ac.50 cents of land and getting substantial income over it. A further submission has been made that the wife got a land under registered sale deed and she is getting substantial income from it. He would also submit that the wife has a bank balance, which has been evidenced by Ex.R3, and, therefore, the order of the trial Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the wife as confirmed by the Revisional Court is liable to be quashed. The husband got himself examined as R.W.1 and marked three documents to prove that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. Ex.R1 is the registered gift deed. The total extent covered under the registered gift is only Ac.50 cents. No substantial evidence has been placed on record by the husband to show that the income the wife gets out of Ac.50 cents is sufficient to maintain herself. The property covered under Ex.R2-sale deed is a vacant site. Again there is no evidence that the wife gets any income out of the vacant site covered under Ex.R2-sale deed. The husband having pleaded that the wife possess substantial means to maintain herself failed to substantiate the same by producing cogent and convincing evidence. The trial court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to grant maintenance to the wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.4,000/- each. The Revisional Court, on reappreciation of the material brought on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the maintenance granted by the trial Court in favour of the wife and daughter. There is no flaw in the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Reivisional Court in granting maintenance to the wife and the daughter at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence this Criminal Petition fails and accordingly it is hereby dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:26.8.2010 mrb