IN THE HGIH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.359 OF 2008 BETWEEN: K. Balakrishna S/o. Babaiah and others …. Petitioner AND The State of A.P.., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.359 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Crl.P.C., is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 6 against the order dated 03-12- 2007 in Crl.M.P. No.5553 of 2007 in DVC No.15 of 2007 passed by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.2,500/- was ordered to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the husband of respondent No.2, who is son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, died and respondent No.2 is getting Rs.2,051/- per month and the two children are getting Rs.513/- each per month, towards pension and therefore, the interim order of the trial Court is not in accordance with law. He also filed a copy of the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Regional Office, Hyderabad showing the details of the pension granted to respondent No.2 and her children. 3. Admittedly, the copy of the said order was not filed before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to granting of interim maintenance. There is also a dispute between the parties in relation to the house that was said to have been constructed by the husband of respondent No.2. Therefore, that aspect has to be decided by the trial Court, basing upon the material on record. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 03-12-2007 in Crl.M.P. No.5553 of 2007 in DVC No.15 of 2007 passed by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal after hearing both sides and, if necessary, after receiving further evidence. It is further directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the D.V.C. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 22, 2010. KTL