THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.335 of 2009 Dated: 27th August, 2009 Between: Bashapaka Ratnabushanam …Petitioner and 1. The State of A.P.,rep. by is P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.335 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 21.11.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.260 of 2008 in MC No.93 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court granted interim monthly allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner/wife. 2. The 2nd respondent is the wife and the petitioner is the husband. They are sufficiently old and had enjoyed the marital life and it is evidenced by the birth of a son and a daughter. Subsequently, some disputes arose and they fell apart. Husband filed O.P.No.72 of 1983 seeking divorce. It appears that the said divorce petition ended in dismissal for non-prosecution. Husband remarried and got the association of some other woman. The wife filed M.C.No.93 of 2007 under Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. She also filed Crl.M.P.No.260 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on hearing the leaned counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to grant interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife, by order dated 21.11.2008. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/wife. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that 2nd respondent/wife left the company of the petitioner long ago and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/wife supported the order impugned in the revision. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner remarried without getting the decree of dissolution of the marriage with the 2nd respondent/wife through the process of law. Indeed, he filed O.P. for dissolution of marriage and the same ended in dismissal for non-prosecution. When once the petitioner/husband got the association of another woman, the 2nd respondent/wife is entitled to claim separate residence. In that view of the matter, I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:27th August, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs