THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5044 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 08.07.2008 in Criminal Revision Petition No.64 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor whereunder and whereby order dated 10.9.2007 in M.C. No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner, is confirmed. 2. The respondent no.1 is the wife of the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The respondents 1 to 3 filed Maintenance Case No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner for grant of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month each. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, granted maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3. On revision, the revisional court, by the impugned order, confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is getting income of Rs.2,500/- per month after deductions and therefore granting maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3 is onerous and beyond the capacity of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the petitioner is getting Rs.10,000/- per month as salary and therefore granting maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3 is not on higher side, and that both the courts below, upon appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, granted the maintenance, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5. Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court, to give effect to the order passed under this Code or to secure ends of justice. As seen from the evidence, it is clear that the petitioner was suspecting fidelity of his wife and therefore it is a just ground to the wife to live separately and claim maintenance. The evidence before both the courts below shows that the petitioner has not taken any steps to bring his wife back to matrimonial home and therefore it amounts to neglect. 6. With regard to income of the petitioner, admittedly, he was working as Clerk in State Government and was getting gross salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. There is no evidence as to what are the statutory deductions from his salary. The evidence of petitioner that, after deductions of certain amounts, he was getting Rs.2,500/- per month, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner obtained loans on different accounts and getting Rs.2,500/- net salary per month, the same cannot be taken as income of the petitioner. Even after the statutory deductions of Rs.1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- per month, the petitioner was getting net income of Rs.6,000/- per month and so, Rs.3,000/- can be utilized for his sustenance and the remaining Rs.3,000/- can be paid to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. So, for the foregoing reasons, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3 in all, cannot be said to be on higher side or not in proportionate with the income of the petitioner. Therefore, both the courts below, after considering the evidence on record, rightly granted maintenance and none of the findings is shown to be illegal or improper or incorrect. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 09.10.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5044 of 2008 Date: 9.10.2009 Between: K.Murali Kumar …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5044 of 2008 09.10.2009