IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1679 OF 2009 Between: Polisetty Ramu … PETITIONER And 1. Polisetty Prathibha Rani 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1679 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the first respondent. He is questioning common order dated 23.09.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.525 of 2009 and 545 of 2009 in M.C.No.44 of 2009, granting interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. As the matter now stands, there is no dispute between the parties about relationship of husband and wife. There is also no dispute that both the parties are living separately from each other. It is stated that petition filed by the husband for divorce and another petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights were dismissed by the lower Court. 3. It is contended that without disposing of main maintenance case on merits, the lower Court passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance. The lower Court observed that it may take some time for that Court to dispose of the maintenance case after full fledged enquiry. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the first respondent executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 06.07.2004, relinquishing all her claims as against the petitioner and that therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for maintenance or interim maintenance. The question of relinquishing right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in a criminal Court, may not arise as it is opposed to public policy. There cannot be estoppel against a criminal law remedy. It is contended that when the first respondent received Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner under the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.07.2004, it cannot be said that the first respondent has no means to maintain herself. 4. As the matter now stands at the interim stage, there is no material to show that the first respondent is still possessing the said cash of Rs.3,00,000/- received under the Relinquishment Deed dated 06.07.2004. It is a matter for evidence during final enquiry of the maintenance case. The amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid long back, i.e., about five years prior to filing of the petition in the lower Court. 5. Insofar as capacity of the petitioner to maintain the petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no dispute. It is pointed out by the lower Court that the petitioner is paying income tax of Rs.7,00,000/- per year. In the circumstances, interim maintenance granted by the lower Court at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month is in no way excessive or contrary to law. 6. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 10, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1679 OF 2009 August 10, 2010 KL