IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1268 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Navundru Sridhar Rao S/o. N. Sanjeeva Rao …. Petitioner AND Smt. Navundru Sharmila W/o. N. Sridhar Rao and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1268 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed by the husband / father against order dated 13-05-2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada in Criminal M.P. No.121 of 2009 in M.C. No.194 of 2008, by which the lower Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent / wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the children / respondents 2 and 3 apart from granting Rs.15,000/- per year to each of the children towards educational expenses. The petitioner has no grievance against the order grating maintenance and educational expenses to the children / respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has got serious objection for granting interim maintenance to the first respondent / wife. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the first respondent is in the habit of harassing her husband and going away from the marital home often, showing scant respect for the petitioner. It is further contended that the first respondent has misused and even abused process of Court by filing one case or the other and refusing to cooperate with any Court for disposal of the matters. Previously, the respondents 1 to 3 filed M.C. No.156 of 2003 in the lower Court for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and also filed Criminal M.P. No.94 of 2004 for interim maintenance. The lower Court by order dated 13-08-2004 in Criminal M.P. No.94 of 2004 refused to grant interim maintenance to the first respondent / wife and granted interim maintenance to the children. It is stated that subsequently, the first respondent joined the petitioner abandoning M.C. No.156 of 2003. Now, again there is separation between the parties resulting in filing of the present M.C. No.194 of 2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. 3. For this Court, it is immaterial whether the first respondent is a daughter of retired Chief Secretary of Kerala Government or whether the petitioner is an IPS Officer of Assam cadre. It has to be seen whether there are grounds under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for granting interim maintenance. 4. Admittedly, both the parties are living separately from each other. The first respondent / wife filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner and it is pending. The petitioner also filed another petition for divorce against the first respondent and it is also pending. Having regard to these circumstances, it cannot be said that there are no circumstances for the first respondent / wife to live separately from the petitioner and claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to the first respondent, the petitioner was harassing her to bring additional dowry from her parents and was putting her to mental torture and was also beating. Truth of all these allegations has to be judged after enquiry of M.C. No.194 of 2008, which is pending. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the first respondent is Post Graduate with MBA Degree and that she has got ancestral properties also and that several properties were acquired with ancestral nucleus. As the matter now stands, there is no proof of any income for the first respondent to maintain herself. The first respondent is not working anywhere and is not getting any salary or income. Having regard to all these circumstances of the case, the lower Court rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent / wife. Simply because, on an earlier occasion the lower Court rejected claim of the first respondent for interim maintenance, it cannot be contended that the same yardstick has to be followed now also. This Court has to decide the first respondent’s claim for interim maintenance having regard to subsequent events and the subsequent litigation between the parties. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 6. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. In so far as arrears of interim maintenance amount is concerned, the petitioner is granted permission to deposit the same in the lower Court @ Rs.50,000/- per month, apart from paying current interim maintenance amounts. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 14, 2010 KTL