K. Karunakar v. The State of A.P

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 14-12-2007 in Crl.R.P. No.21 of 2007 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Asifabad, whereunder and whereby, the learned Judge confirmed the order dated 24-02-2007, in Cr.M.P.No.2107 of 2005 in M.C. No.106 of 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manchirial.

Respondent No.2 is the wife and respondent No.3 is the daughter of the petitioner.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed M.C. No.106 of 2005 against the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manchirial seeking to grant maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to each of them on the ground that the petitioner is neglecting to maintain them. Respondent No.2 also filed Crl.M.P. No.2107 of 2005 in M.C. No.106 of 2005 for interim maintenance. The trial Court, by its order dated 24-02-2007 in Crl.M.P. No.2107 of 2005 in M.C. No.106 of 2005, granted Rs.300/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 as interim maintenance. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No.21 of 2007 before the III Additional District Judge, (FTC), Asifabad and the learned District Judge, by the impugned order, confirmed the order of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 herself left the company of the petitioner and did not turn up inspite of his best efforts, that the respondent No.2 is a teacher, that the petitioner has no means to pay the maintenance, as he is an unemployee, that both the Courts below, without considering the documentary evidence, passed the orders and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned orders.

There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the orders under this code.

The petitioner herein, who is no other than the husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3 herein, is bound to pay maintenance, as they are unable to maintain themselves. Thus, granting interim maintenance at Rs.300/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the trial Court is sufficient to meet both ends of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, none of the findings in the impugned orders are shown to be illegal or incorrect and that it is only an interim order, pending disposal of the main case. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the orders.