THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3453 OF 2008 ORDER: This is a petition filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.4 of 2005 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa and consequently the Orders passed in M.C.No.16 of 2003 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the present petitioner and the same was numbered as M.C.16 of 2003 and the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, by Order dated 25.01.2005 awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner herein has filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.4 of 2005 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, but the same was dismissed confirming the Order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty. 3. Now, the learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the complaint given by the1st respondent and he is not having any source of income and the trial Court has not taken into consideration the said aspect and simply awarded the maintenance on the ground of taking into consideration of the age and physique of the present petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand had pleaded that the 1st respondent is the wife and 2nd respondent is the minor son of the petitioner and it is his duty to maintain them as they are unable to maintain themselves and the amount awarded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty is not sufficient for their maintenance. Since it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain them, he has to earn and pay the maintenance to the respondents. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty also considered the contention of the petitioner that the service of the petitioner was terminated, but he is working in private company and drawing salary and he has got sufficient means to maintain the respondents and his father is having house property. 5. In the revision, the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration of the age and physique of the present petitioner, come to the conclusion that the petitioner has to earn money and pay the maintenance to his wife and minor son. He did not dispute that the petitioner, who is working as S.I of police in C.R.P.F. 83 Battalion, was dismissed from service on the complaint given by the 1st respondent about his illicit intimacy with the owner of the house, in which they are residing and as on today the petitioner is not having the job. But as observed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty the petitioner’s father is having house property, in which the petitioner is having a share and he is also working in private company and drawing salary. The 1st respondent being his wife and 2nd respondent being his minor son, it is his duty to maintain them and he cannot sit idle to avoid payment of maintenance to them. As rightly taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge, Kadapa, the age, educational qualifications and physique of the present petitioner, held that he could able to earn and pay the said maintenance as awarded by the lower Court. 6. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the Orders passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Crl.R.P.No.4 of 2005. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 18th March, 2011 KSP