IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3558 of 2008 DATE:23.07.2010 Between: K.Venkata Satyanarayana …… Petitioner And: Smt.K.V.Lakshmi Kameswari and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3558 of 2008 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is directed against a revisional order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division, Rajahmundry in Crl.Rev.P.No.40 of 2007. Circumventing legal prohibition, this criminal petition is filed by a back door method, since a second revision petition is not maintainable by the same party in this Court. 2) Be that as it may, subject matter of this criminal petition is maintenance proceedings in which maintenance of Rs.500/- per month was granted to each of the respondents 1 and 2 who are wife and minor child. It was modified by the Sessions Judge to Rs.400/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the minor child. The petitioner is working as priest in Sai Baba temple at Payakaraopet which is one of the twin towns of Tuni and Payakaraopet. According to him, his income is Rs.1,000/- per month. Secretary of the temple where he was doing the work, deposed to the said fact. There is no evidence as to what he was doing before and after pujari work in the temple. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that he filed petition in marital Court for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife and that it was allowed. There is no material placed in the Courts below with regard to the said fact. It is stated that the said order was passed subsequent to the orders passed by the Courts below. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Courts below did not take into consideration order of restitution of conjugal rights. It is an alleged subsequent event. No order of restitution of conjugal rights is also placed before this Court. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is minimum duty of the able bodied husband and father to maintain his wife and minor children. For the sin of marrying the petitioner and for the sin of being born to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot become destitute persons. The Courts below rightly awarded maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the revisional Court. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 KSH