P.Amar Naidu, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And 2 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 570 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                    Crl.R.C.No.943 OF 2010

JUDGMENT :

None appears for the petitioner and there is no

representation. Heard learned counsel for respondent Nos.2

and 3. Perused the record.

2. This criminal revision case arises against the order dated

19.12.2008 in M.C.No.176 of 2007 passed by the learned

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-

cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII-Additional Chief

Judge, Hyderabad.

3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are wife and minor

son, filed M.C.176 of 2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., against

the petitioner-husband seeking maintenance. Respondent No.2

stated that petitioner is working as Medical Sales Manager in

M/s Cadila Health Centre and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per

month, besides incentives of Rs.15,000/- per month and

requested to grant Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and

Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.3 towards their

maintenance. Petitioner filed counter opposing the claim of the

respondents. He stated that he lost his job and they have entered

into compromise in the Lok Adalath. But the trial Court after

considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides,

granted Rs.5,000/- towards monthly maintenance to respondent

No.2 from the date of petition i.e., 05.07.2007 and dismissed the

claim of respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the present

revision is preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he never

neglected his wife and son. Respondent No.2 suspected that the

petitioner was having illicit intimacy with one Sharmila.

Complaints were lodged by respondent No.2 and Sharmila

against each other. Thereafter, respondent No.2 entered into

compromise with the said Sharmila before Lok Adalath.

The trial Court, without appreciating the evidence properly,

granted maintenance. Hence, the petitioner-husband requested

the Court to set aside the impugned order.

5. Considering the above said circumstances, this Court is of

the opinion that the trial Court has rightly considered the income

of the petitioner and other aspects and granted Rs.5,000/- per

month towards maintenance to respondent No.2 and dismissed

the claim of respondent No.3. I do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order passed by the trial Court, warranting

interference.

6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

7. As a sequel to, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Date: 03.02.2022

Note: CC by one week.

(B/O) Yvkr