THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1931 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash orders passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2008, dated 29.01.2009, on the file of III-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2006 and respondent in the Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2008; whereas, the 1st respondent herein is the respondent in the Maintenance Case and petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition. For the sake of convenience, I will refer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case. The petitioner filed the Maintenance case No.2 of 2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to her against the respondent on the ground that there was legal marriage between them and without any lawful reasons, he neglected and deserted her. On contest, the maintenance case was allowed granting Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from the date of petition, whereas aggrieved by the orders passed in the maintenance case, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2008, in which the quantum of maintenance was reduced to Rs.1,000/- on the ground that she got some properties which were also to be taken into consideration and aggrieved by the orders passed in Criminal Revision Petition, this criminal petition is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said properties were sold away by her father, even though they were in her name, and hence, those properties cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the quantum of maintenance, and the criminal revisional Court committed error in that context and accordingly, the order passed in the Criminal Revision Petition is liable to be set aside while restoring the maintenance amount awarded by the orders passed in the maintenance case. It is to be considered as to whether there are grounds to set aside the orders passed in the Criminal Revision Petition, while restoring the order passed in the maintenance case. I have gone through the record. It is pertinent to note here that in the criminal revision case, the properties that were in her name were taken into consideration while deciding the quantum of maintenance, and taking into consideration those properties, the maintenance awarded earlier was reduced. But it is now contended that the said properties were sold away by her father, and hence the orders passed in the criminal revision petition are to be set aside. If she had certain properties and subsequently her properties were sold away during the pendency of the proceedings, and she requires more amount for her maintenance which the respondent is capable of paying, she can file another application for the purpose of enhancement of the maintenance, in view of changed circumstances. Unless the orders passed by the Sessions Court are perverse or without considering relevant evidence, Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed in the criminal revision petition. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merits in this criminal petition, and accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 26th December, 2011 KSM