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.1427 OF 2010 Between: Nethi Subbaiah … PETITIONER And 1. Nethi Satya Vani 2. Nethi Lokesh 3. Nethi Mahesh 4. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1427 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3/minor children. The Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.No.145 of 2010 in M.C.No.249 of 2009, by order dated 03.05.2010, granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the two minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. Admittedly, both the parties are living separately. The petitioner is a railway employee as Electrical Kalasi at Bitragunta. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the first respondent who is a resident of Vijayawada is not inclined to join the petitioner at Bitragunta and that it is a case which squarely falls under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. Whether Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. is applicable or not and what are the facts leading to separation between the parties, are questions to be gone into and decided by the lower Court during final enquiry of the maintenance case. 4. It is pointed out that previously, in M.C.No.117 of 1998, the Family Court, Vijayawada, by order dated 09.11.2010, refused to order maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the wife was responsible for separation. As against the said order, the respondents 1 to 3 filed Crl.R.C.No.372 of 2004 in this Court. By order dated 01.05.2009, this Court closed the criminal revision case when both the parties stated that on advice of elders and in the interest of children and family, both had compromised the matter and are now living amicably. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the wife did not join the petitioner even subsequent to the order passed by this Court. This Court recorded an accomplished fact, namely that both the parties were living amicably since some time prior to compromise. Therefore, the question of the wife joining the petitioner subsequent to 01.05.2009 does not arise at all. Cause of action for the present maintenance case, as per allegations in the petition, arose thereafter. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court warranting interference by this Court in this revision petition. 5. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 10, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1427 OF 2010 August 10, 2010 KL