HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.146 of 2009 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.298 of 2009 Date: November 16, 2011 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.146 of 2009 Between: 1. Jilagam Sree Smitha & another … Petitioners and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.298 of 2009 Between: Jilagam Kota Satya Malleswara Rao … Petitioner And 1. Jilagam Sree Smitha & 2 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.146 of 2009 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.298 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the revisions arise out of the order dated 15.12.2008 passed in M.C. No.152 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the lower court. 3. According to the case of the petitioners the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 26.6.2002 at Rajahmundry and the second petitioner was born to them during their wedlock. After the marriage, the respondent, who was an employee in State Bank of India, was transferred to Upperkudil which is in a different State. There were differences between them and the respondent did not take the petitioners and he has suppressed his address and did not provide any maintenance to the petitioners who are unable to maintain themselves. It is also came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the respondent has filed O.P. No.120 of 2006 at Rajahmundry for restitution of conjugal rights by showing a wrong address. The first petitioner resides at Hyderabad and studying M.B.A. The respondent is said to be earning Rs.30,000/-, hence the petitioners claim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each. 4. The respondent did not deny the marriage or the birth of the second petitioner during the lawful wedlock. According to him the first petitioner joined his company at Sreevardhan where he worked for some time and subsequently was transferred to Upperkudil and from there he was transferred to Mumbai where he was working. The respondent also attributed that the first petitioner subjected him to cruelty and ill-treatment and did not co-operate in day-to-day life. The first petitioner left his company voluntarily on 08.11.2005 and thereafter she did not join him. Therefore, according to him there is no negligence on his part and he intends to take back the petitioners to live with them. 5. On considering the rival contentions and after recording the evidence of P.W.1, who is the first petitioner, and the evidence of R.W.1, who is the respondent, the lower court has granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to each of the petitioner from the date of petition i.e., 27.6.2007 and being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, the petitioners have filed Crl.R.C. No.146 of 2009 and questioning granting of maintenance Crl.R.C. No.298 of 2009 was filed by the respondent. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the respondent is not liable to provide maintenance to the petitioners? (2) Whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower court is reasonable and whether it requires any enhancement? 7. Points 1 & 2: So far as the performance of the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent in 2002 and also the birth of the second petitioner during the lawful wedlock are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. The counter filed by the respondent before the lower court goes to show that ever since the marriage, the first petitioner subjected him to suffer mental harassment and also suppressed several material facts concerning her. According to him, the first petitioner has suddenly left his company on 08.11.2005 and she did not return. The fact remains that the second petitioner is said to have born on 12.8.2003. The respondent claims to have issued a legal notice on 17.4.2006 and a reply is said to have been given by the first petitioner and both these documents were not filed before the lower court during the enquiry. The respondent claims to be instituted O.P. No.120 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights and the result of that petition is also not filed. The respondent has also not examined any of the witnesses either from the neighbourhood or from the family in order to show the abnormal conduct of the first petitioner or her ill-treatment to him. Further more, there is no material to show that the first petitioner and the respondent lived together at the place where the respondent is working after the birth of the second petitioner. The family members are the best persons to prove all these allegations, but the respondent has not chosen to prove the same. Therefore as matter stands, the fact is the petitioners are living separately from the respondent and the cause attributed by the respondent for the petitioners to leave his company is not proved and therefore it is a clear case of neglect of the petitioners by the respondent consequently entitling them for grant of maintenance which was rightly granted by the lower court. 8. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, evidently the respondent is said to be an employee in a bank and his total salary is a sum of Rs.12,531/- by the date of trial of the case. He was evidently living in Mumbai where the cost of living is more and the quantum of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- granted to the petitioners, which is equally half of his salary, cannot be said to be less. If the petitioners can prove that there was a change of the financial status of the respondent and increase in need of the petitioners, they can file an application for enhancement of the maintenance before the lower court. 9. Therefore, I do not find any merit in both the revisions and the same are dismissed. The respondent having obtained stay of the orders did not deposit the amount. The respondent is therefore directed to deposit the entire arrears within three months from today. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: November 17, 2011. BSB