IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6485 OF 2009 Between: Ch.Srinivas Rao …Petitioner A n d Chintalapudi Jyothi and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6485 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 26.06.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.80 of 2008 in M.C.No.148 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said application filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein for interim maintenance was allowed, granting Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3, the children, pending disposal of the main case. 2. None appears for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed M.C.No.148 of 2008 claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each from the petitioner. It is not disputed that the marriage of petitioner with the 1st respondent was solemnized on 26.04.2001 and respondents 2 and 3 were born during the lawful wedlock. The 2nd respondent was aged 6 years and the 3rd respondent was aged 5 years by the date of filing of the maintenance case. The respondents filed Crl.M.P.No.80 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance on the ground that the wife is not having any independent means or source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and the children. 4. During enquiry, the respondents have also produced the documents to show that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are studying in school and also showing the expenditure towards school fees. Though the petitioner herein claimed that he was drawing salary of only Rs.2,000/- per month as a Supervisor, he has not filed any document in support of the said plea. He has also not adduced any evidence to show that the wife is working in beauty paralour and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as alleged by him. Under those circumstances, taking into consideration the educational expenses and other basic needs, the trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3, the children. 5. This Court, while granting interim suspension of the said order on 20.08.2009, directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month each to two children, i.e., 1st and 2nd respondents herein together with arrears. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has complied with the interim order in part by paying only the interim maintenance to the children, but not to the wife. If there are any arrears of interim maintenance payable pursuant to the interim order dated 20.08.2009, it is open to the respondents to execute the order and recover the same and also to seek appropriate relief in the M.C before the trial Court. 7. Having regard to the fact that the rival contentions of the parties pertaining to the relative assets and liabilities is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of enquiry and also in view of the fact that the M.C was filed in the year 2008, it is considered just and proper to direct the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, to dispose of the M.C itself at an early date, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the M.C is disposed of, the petitioner herein shall continue to pay the interim maintenance as ordered by this Court in the interim order dated 20.08.2009 before 15th of every month. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd December, 2011 Lrkm