HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.Nos.166, 202 and 203 of 2010 Date: 11-02-2010 Crl.R.C.No.166 of 2010 Between: Smt. Ashraf Begum and others Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor And another Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.Nos.166, 202 and 203 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Revision Cases have been filed against the common order, dated 29-01-2010 in M.P.Nos.52, 53 and 54 of 2010 respectively, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Since all the Revision Cases arise out of the common order, they are clubbed and this common order is being passed. 3. Both the parties are present. 4. The first petitioner is the wife of the second respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are the minor children of the first petitioner and second respondent. The petitioners herein filed M.C.No.139 of 2001 claiming maintenance and the same was allowed on 22-03-2002 directing the second respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs.1,200/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioners herein. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed Crl.R.C.No.660 of 2002 and the same was deposed of 01-11-2004 confirming the orders passed in M.C.No.139 of 2001. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, against the order in the maintenance case, the petitioners herein filed Crl.R.C.No.1761 of 2003 before this Court and this Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,850/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the second respondent has not paid anything towards maintenance from 2001. The petitioners herein filed M.P.Nos.52 to 54 of 2010 in the said maintenance case for recovery of the enhanced maintenance amount from 28-02-2009 to 28-05-2009. 6. NBWs were issued against the second respondent, but they could not be executed inspite of deputing several police personnel. The second respondent was arrested on 29-01-2001 and produced before the lower Court. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, dated 29-01-2010 observed that sentencing the second respondent is a wastage of public money and he has to be provided food from out of the state exchequer and the same does not serve any purpose. Holding so, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the second respondent to undergo imprisonment for a period of eight days commencing from 29-01-2010. 7. The second respondent filed a counter stating that he had been in jail on several occasions since 2003. It is clear from the counter itself that that though he was released from jail on several occasions on making a promise that soon after release, he will make necessary arrangement to pay maintenance to the petitioners, he did not pay a single rupee to the petitioners. 8. According to the wife, who presented before the Court, the second respondent has married another woman and he is having children through the second wife and he is having sufficient income and properties. It is also her allegation that he has sold all immovable properties and converted the same into money and concealed the same to deprive the maintenance to them. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has taken too lenient view had not taken into consideration the conduct of the second respondent. 10. In the circumstances, I consider that it just and reasonable to direct the second respondent to suffer imprisonment for 15 days, for each default of payment of maintenance, which shall run consecutively commencing from 29-01-2010. 11. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to issue fresh warrant of imprisonment against the second respondent accordingly. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 11-02-2010 YCR