HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7790 of 2007 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 17.04.2006 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, in M.C.No.22 of 2005, as confirmed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, by an order dated 16.11.2007, in Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2006, 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are wife and daughter of the petitioner herein, filed M.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, against the petitioner seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each. The court below, after hearing both sides and considering both the oral and documentary evidence, by an order dated 17.04.2006, allowed the maintenance case directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- p.m. to each of respondents 1 and 2 towards maintenance. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The said revision petition was dismissed on 16.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this criminal petition. 3. This Court, while ordering notice before admission to respondents 1 and 2, granted interim suspension of the order impugned in this criminal petition, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks and also continuing to pay a sum of Rs.500/- p.m. to each of respondents 1 and 2 before 15th of every succeeding month, by an order dated 27.12.2007. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not known as to whether the interim order dated 27.12.2007 is complied with or not. 5. The amount of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- p.m. awarded by the court below is meager. In these hard days, it is very difficult for respondents 1 and 2 to maintain themselves with the said amount. It is settled proposition of law that husband is to maintain his wife and children. Further, having gone through the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the trial court as well as the revisional court gave concurrent findings that respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance, which factual aspect cannot be gone into by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 22nd April, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7790 of 2007 (Dismissed) Date:22-04-2010 CBS