THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2910 OF 2009 Date: 30.12.2011 Between: B.Usharani …..Petitioner And T.Balamurugan and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2910 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner herein is the wife. She filed a maintenance case i.e. M.C.No.7 of 2005 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor claiming a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from her husband who is the first respondent herein. 3. The learned Magistrate after considering the matter by his order dated 12.1.2006 partly allowed the above case by granting a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Magistrate, the wife filed Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2006 on the file of the Court of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor for enhancing of the maintenance. However the said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 31.1.2007. Questioning the same, the wife has come up with this criminal petition. 4. Sri K.Srinivas pointed out that the respondent has got a job of Messenger in State Bank of India and by the date of filing of the maintenance case, he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- and therefore the learned Magistrate ignored the said fact and awarded a meagre amount of Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance. Sri K.Srinivas further pointed out certain observations of the learned Magistrate themselves would show that the respondent admitted that his income was Rs.12,000/- per month. This cannot be accepted. It may be noted that the learned Sessions Judge who also wrote an elaborate order has observed that P.W.1 i.e. the wife herself in her evidence admitted that the respondent was getting only a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. A perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge would show that the wife could not lead any evidence in the form of convincing documents to show that the respondent was working as a Messenger in the State Bank of India and in any event he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month even by the date of the maintenance case. 5. It should be noted that no material has been shown to hold that the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously decided the matter against the evidence and in fact the learned Sessions Judge observed that the admission of P.W.1 herself would show that she admitted the income of the respondent was Rs.3,000/- per month. The order of the learned Magistrate would also show that apart from the petitioner the respondent has to maintain his mother also. In the above circumstances, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be against evidence. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It may be noted that the maintenance case is of 2005 and we are now in December 2011. It shall always be open for the petitioner to initiate separate proceedings for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. or otherwise, if she is so advised by leading evidence about changed circumstances regarding her needs and also the income of the husband. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 30th December, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2910 OF 2009 DATE: 30.12.2011