THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3752 OF 2007 Date:01.12.2009 Between: J. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Srinivas ……Petitioner And: J. Naga Chakra Lakshmi and 2 others ….. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3752 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the husband/father under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in C.R.P.No.102 of 2006 by which order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Peddapuram in M.C.No.5 of 2005 granting maintenance of Rs.600/- per month to the wife and Rs.400/- per month to the minor child was confirmed. The respondents 1 and 2 who are wife and minor child claimed maintenance against the petitioner under Section125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the extent of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- per month respectively. The courts below awarded maintenance of Rs.600/- and Rs.400/- per month respectively to the respondents 1 and 2. There is no dispute that both the parties are living separately. According to the respondents 1 and 2, they have no sufficient means to maintain themselves and that the petitioner neglected to maintain them. On the other hand, the petitioner contended before the courts below that he has meagre sources of income and that he cannot pay maintenance. Ultimately both the courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has got sufficient means by way of salary from his private employment, income from Ac.3.00 of land and flour mill. At the same time, it is established before the courts below that the 1st respondent has got Ac.1.50 cents of land and she is getting income from that land and that the 1st respondent had withdrawn Rs.66,795/- from Cooperative Bank at Ragampeta in the year 2003. The 1st respondent did not file any records to show nature of that land and income therefrom. According to her it is only a dry land on which she is getting income of Rs.1,000/- per month. Without proof of nature of land and income therefrom, it cannot be said that income from that land is not sufficient for the 1st respondent’s maintenance. The 1st respondent also could not explain as to how she has got Rs.66,795/- and what was done to the said amount after it was withdrawn by her in the year 2003. She failed to explain that circumstance also. These two circumstances cumulatively establish that the 1st respondent has got sufficient means to maintain herself. Both the courts below totally ignored these aspects and therefore, grant of maintenance of Rs.600/- per month to the 1st respondent is not sustainable in law. In so far as the 2nd respondent/minor child is concerned, undoubtedly he is entitled for maintenance as awarded by the courts below since he has no capacity to earn for himself. In the result, the petition is partly allowed setting aside the order of granting maintenance by the courts below to the 1st respondent; and the petition is partly dismissed in so far as grant of maintenance to the 2nd respondent is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J 01.12.2009, Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3752 OF 2007 Date:01.12.2009 Gk.