HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1471 OF 2006 DATE:22-07-2010 BETWEEN P.Suvarnamma & others …Petitioners AND P.Govinda Gupta & Another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1471 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to quash the orders, dated 3.11.2005 passed in Crl.R.P.No.38 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. First petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first respondent herein. The petitioners herein filed M.C.No.4 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the first respondent. The learned Magistrate, by order, dated 12.4.2005 awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to each of the petitioners from the date of the petition. Questioning the same, the first respondent filed a revision in Crl.R.P.No.38 of 2005 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order modified the order passed by the Magistrate in so far as awarding maintenance at Rs.500/- per month to the first petitioner-wife from the date of the petition and restricted it from the date of the order while maintaining the order of maintenance from the date of the petition in the case of petitioners 2 and 3. It was also clarified that the first respondent can file a petition before the learned Magistrate after the petitioners 2 and 3 attain the age of majority seeking cancellation of the order for payment of maintenance to them. Questioning the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in so far as it restricting the maintenance to the first petitioner from the date of the order, the present petition is filed. Indisputably, the first petitioner is the second wife of the first respondent whom she married after the death of his first wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. They are entitled to be maintained by the first respondent. Further the learned Sessions Judge found that the allegations that the first petitioner- wife is leading adulterous life is nothing but false and the first respondent-husband himself refused to take back his wife when she expressed her readiness to join his company. Her evidence shows that she is working as a maidservant in a hotel and getting Rs.500/- per month. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge found that award of maintenance at Rs.500/- to each of the petitioners is reasonable, but restricted the maintenance to the wife-first petitioner only from the date of the order as no reasons were assigned by the learned Magistrate in the M.C. for awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. Having regard to the said finding of fact, no infirmity is discernable with the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in restricting the maintenance to the first petitioner from the date of the order. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 22, 2010 Tsr.