himself admitted that he did several jobs in Hyderabad and is doing pickles and powder business. The courts below, in the considered view of this court, had discussed about the maintenance of the respondents in a proper perspective. More over, the maintenance granted by the trial court @ Rs.2,500/- per month each to the respondents is a meager amount.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15309 OF 2016

Between:

1. SURISETTY KUMAR S/o S.Krishnaiah,

Aged about 35yrs, R/o D.No.1-51A,

Guttapalem Village, Kalikiri Mandal,

Chittoor District.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. S. HIMA BINDU & 2 OTHERS W/o S. Kumar Aged about 28 Yrs,

2. S. Tharun, S/0 S. Kumar

Aged about 3 "Yz yrs,

Respondent No. 2 is minor rep. by his natural I mother and Guaridan i.e,.

respondent No.1

Both are R/o D.No.11-317, Ramulavari Gudi Street, Chittoor Town,

Chittoor District.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of

Judicature at Hyderdo;it.1

For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following: ORDER

2024:APHC:78

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

CRL.P.NO.15309 OF 2016

ORDER:-

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has

been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order, dated

15-07-2016, passed in Crl.R.P.No.49 of 2015 by the learned

IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor wherein

and whereby the revision filed by the petitioner under Section

397 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order, dated 29-05-2015,

passed in M.C.No.22 of 2013 by the learned IV Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittor, was dismissed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. From the pleadings and submissions made by both

sides, the following facts are discernible:-

 That the petitioner is the husband and the respondents

are his wife and younger son; that the marriage of the

petitioner with the 1st respondent was solemnized on 19-10-

2004 as per their caste, custom and rites; that during their

wedlock, two male children were born; that after birth of

children, the petitioner used to harass the 1st respondent for

want of additional dowry and necked her along with

2024:APHC:78

 2

2

nd respondent out from the house; that despite conduction of

mediation by both side elders, the petitioner refused to take

back the respondents; that as the respondents are unable to

maintain themselves, they filed M.C. No.22 of 2013 before the

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

seeking maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent and

Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent; that the learned IV

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor after

considering the evidence adduced by both sides and after

hearing the contentions of both sides, allowed the M.C by

granting Rs.2,500/- each to the respondents from the date of

order; that being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

preferred a Criminal Revision Petition i.e., Crl.R.P.49 of 2015

before the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor;

that the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chittoor having considered the submissions of both sides

dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition while confirming the

maintenance order granted by the court below; that being

aggrieved by the order of the learned IX Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, the petitioner preferred the

present Criminal petition seeking to quash the order.

2024:APHC:78

 3

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the order passed by the revisional court as well as the

trial court is erroneous as the maintenance granted @ 2,500/-

each to the respondents is on higher side. Further, the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

both the courts below failed to consider the factum of the 1st

respondent herself deserted the petitioner and living with her

parents and also failed to consider the legal notice, dated 28-

03-2013, which is marked as Ex.P-3.

5. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to marital

relationship between the petitioner and respondents. Further,

there is also no dispute that the elder son is residing with the

revision petitioner and younger son i.e., 2nd respondent is

residing with the 1st respondent. It is pertinent to note that

the petitioner, who was examined as RW.1 in the trial court,

himself admitted that he did several jobs in Hyderabad and is

doing pickles and powder business. The courts below, in the

considered view of this court, had discussed about the

maintenance of the respondents in a proper perspective. More

over, the maintenance granted by the trial court @ Rs.2,500/-

per month each to the respondents is a meager amount.

2024:APHC:78

 4

Therefore, viewed from any angle, the orders passed by the

revisonal court as well as the trial court cannot be interfered

with. Hence, the present Criminal Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed in consequence.

_______________

K.SURESH REDDY,J

03-01-2024.

TSNR

2024:APHC:78