HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1764 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2010 in Crl.A.NO.122 of 2010. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act) before the Protection Officer, who in turn filed a complaint along with the report. The same was numbered as DVC No.1 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The 1st respondent-wife was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on her behalf. The petitioner-husband was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked on his behalf. On appreciation of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the trial Court by order dated 9.7.2010 awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-p.m., towards maintenance to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs.10,000/- p.m., to the 2nd respondent-son. The same was questioned by filing Crl.A.No.122 of 2010. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2010 seeking suspension of the orders passed by the trial Court on 9.7.2010. However, the learned Sessions Judge refused to suspend the said order and dismissed Crl.M.P.No.410 of 2010 by order dated 9.8.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-husband. It is mainly contended by Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Ex.R6, the petitioner was drawing only an amount of Rs.5,000/-whereas the Court below awarded total maintenance of Rs.25,000/- p.m., on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that by the time of filing of the said DVC, the petitioner was working as Civil Engineer in Shiyas and Suvela Associates, Architects and Engineers at Hyderabad and he was getting Rs.40,000/- towards salary and as an architect he was getting additional income of Rs.60,000/- and taking that fact into consideration, the trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.25,000/- p.m., to both the respondents. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the aspect of income of the petitioner for the reason that if any finding or observation is made by this Court it obviously affects the case of the parties. Apparently the relationship is not in dispute. As per Ex.R6, the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.5,000/- pm. In view of the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 are wife and son of the petitioner, in my considered view, it is the responsibility of the petitioner-husband to maintain them. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that this revision can be disposed of by suspending the order of the trial Court dated 9.7.2010 pending disposal of Crl.A.No.122 of 2010, subject to payment of maintenance to a tune of Rs.5,000/- p.m. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of suspending the order of the trial Court dated 9.7.2010 in DVC No.1 of 2009. However, the petitioner-husband shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- pm., to both the respondents viz., wife and child towards maintenance during the pendency of Criminal Appeal. _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 1.3.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1764 OF 2010 1.3.2011