THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.380 OF 2011 DATED:07.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 27.01.2011, in Crl.M.P.No.510 of 2010 in M.C.No.124 of 2010 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Rangareddy District, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein claiming interim maintenance, was allowed granting Rs.4000/- per month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein filed M.C.No.124 of 2010 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. Petitioner-husband is contesting the same. She also filed Crl.M.P.No.510 of 2010 seeking interim maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month. Petitioner filed counter opposing the said application. 4. According to the 1st respondent, petitioner is working as Manager in Badshah Masala company drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Along with his counter, petitioner filed pay slips showing that he gets a net salary of Rs.5029/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that ignoring the pay slips filed by the petitioner herein, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month while the petitioner is drawing a net salary of Rs.5000/- only. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the said document filed by the petitioner would show that he is getting various amounts towards conveyance expenses, telephone charges etc., and the Family Court has taken into consideration those amounts also while fixing the quantum of interim maintenance. 7. As seen from the document filed by the petitioner, along with his counter, in the Crl.M.P., the amounts shown in the second table relating to expense reimbursement vouchers are by way of reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards conveyance and also telephone. The said amounts are variable varying from month to month depending upon the level of expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards conveyance, telephone charges etc., 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said amount, which is reimbursed to the petitioner towards actual expenditure incurred by him for conveyance, telephone charges etc., cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance as the petitioner does not retain or save any amount from out of the said payment given to him by way of reimbursement. 9. This Court while ordering notice before admission, on 22.03.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of maintenance at 50% of the amount awarded by the Family Court and also continue to pay at the same rate on or before 10th of every succeeding month. It is stated that the interim order has been duly complied with and the petitioner is paying current maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month regularly. 10. In the circumstances, in view of the pay slips filed by the petitioner showing that he was getting a net salary of Rs.5029/- per month and the other amounts mentioned therein are towards reimbursement of the actual expenditure claimed by him, it is considered that the interim order passed by this Court, directing the petitioner to pay @ Rs.2000/- per month, can be made absolute and the petitioner shall continue to pay the same before 10th of every succeeding month till the disposal of the Maintenance Case. It is open to the learned Judge, Family Court, to fix appropriate amount of maintenance based on the evidence that may be adduced during the course of enquiry without being influenced in any way by the interim order passed by this Court, which is now made absolute. 11. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th July, 2011. Tsy