THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.193 of 2009 Dated:05th Agusut, 2010 Between: Koganti Nageswara Rao ….Petitioner and 1. Koganti Deepthi & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.193 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is 1st respondent in CRP No.77 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.10.2008 passed therein. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent herein. The parties hereinafter referred to as the husband, the wife and the child. The wife and the child filed M.C.No.43 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge granted maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.500/- per month while refusing maintenance to the wife, by order dated 18.10.2006. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, the wife and the child filed CRP No.77 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. The revisional Court, after considering the evidence brought on record, proceeded to grant maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month together with costs of Rs.2,000/-, by order dated 20.10.2008. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the husband/petitioner with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.01.2009. The respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the revisional Court missed to take note of the admission made by the wife in her maintenance petition and also the witnesses examined on her behalf with regard to the income she gets out of Ac.1.00 of land, which has been given to her towards Pasupu kumkuma. The learned counsel took me to the pleading of the wife in M.C.No.43 of 2005 and also the evidence of PW.3. Much emphasis has been laid on certain admissions made by PW.3 in the cross-examination. 6. PW.3 admitted in the cross-examination that the income from the land which has been given to the wife towards Pasupu Kumkuma is about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per annum. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW.3, which reads as hereunder: “One acre of land said to be given to PW.1 was not registered. The respondent used to take the income derived from that one acre of land, during the period in which Pw.1 lived along with the respondent. The income from that land will be about Rs.7,000/- or Rs.8,000/- per year. It is not true to suggest that excepting that one acre of land nothing was given to Pw.1 either in cash or gold. It is not true to suggest that since the date of marriage, PW.1 used to take the income from that land on her own.” It is also trite to note that relevant portion of the order passed by the trial Court, which reads as hereunder: “The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 29.11.2000 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vykuntapuram as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, the first petitioner parents gave one acre of land towards here pasupukunkuma and also gave Rs.50,000/- cash as pasupukunkuma and the same was entrusted to the respondent for augmentation.” The pleading in M.C.No.43 of 2005 and the admission of PW.3 are crystal clear that the wife is in possession of one acre of land and gets Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per annum. The revisional Court, without taking into consideration the admissions made by the witness examined on behalf of the wife and also the pleading of the wife in the M.C., proceeded to upset the order passed by the trial Court. Since the wife is already getting an income of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per annum, I deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum of amount allowed to the wife by the revisional Court from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- per month towards maintenance. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed reducing the maintenance amount granted to the wife (1st respondent herein) from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of the petition in M.C. together with costs. The interim stay granted on 22.01.2009 stands vacated. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:05th August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.193 of 2009 Dated:05th August, 2010