HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:469 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 17.1.2003 in M.C.No.42of 2002 whereby awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent was awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2 The marriage between the parties was performed on 8.5.1997 and out of their wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born. However, on account of ill feelings between the parties, the petitioner-husband preferred O.P.No.197 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Similarly, the wife filed O.P.No.744 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and she also gave a complaint against the husband and her parents-in-law for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Be that as it may, during the pendency of those cases, it appears that the elders of both the parties intervened and as per the advise of the elders, the husband and wife have settled their scarces and accordingly, entered into compromise and filed a memo of compromise into Court on 29.1.1999. Accordingly, O.P.No.197 of 1998 filed by the husband seeking divorce was dismissed and the O.P. No.744 of 1998 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights and the complaint under Section 498-A IPC were withdrawn. 3 Pursuant to the said compromise and withdrawal of the cases between the parties, they started living together and accordingly, the husband took a house on rent at Warangal and both the wife and husband lived amicably from March, 1999 to September, 1999. While the matters stood thus, again certain ill-feelings arose between the parties pursuant to which, reiterating as to what has happened including the compromise etc., in the earlier O.P., the husband filed the O.P.No.317 of 2000. 4 The Court below having observed that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent completely broke down and there is no likelihood of reunion and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the marriage in subsistence, ordered dissolution of the marriage by granting divorce with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the wife preferred CMA No.3468 of 2002. On 27.4.2004, this Court allowed the appeal setting aside the order of dissolution of marriage. 5 During the pendency of the above proceedings, it appears the wife filed M.C.No.42 of 2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. and the Family Court having assessed the evidence, which was brought on record, by order dated 17.1.2003 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent-child. The same is questioned in this revision. 6 This Court while admitting this revision, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order impugned in this revision. 7 It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent-wife is decently employed and is drawing salary Rs.2,20,000/- per annum and she is also income tax assessee. He mainly placed reliance on the documents, which are furnished now. 8 From the above documents placed before this court, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the wife is getting a total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- p.a., which is sufficient to maintain herself. But the said documents, which are placed on record now, are not rebutted by the counsel for the respondent-wife by way of additional evidence. In fact, sufficient time has been granted to the counsel for the respondent. But for the last four adjournments i.e. from 15.02.2011 onwards the wife is continuously absent. In those circumstances, this court is quite helpless and this court is of the firm view that the wife is having sufficient income. The amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is Rs.2,500/- to the first respondent – wife and Rs.3,000/- to the second respondent – child. The child is with the first respondent – wife. As the wife is in a position to maintain herself, this court is of the view that there is no need to direct the petitioner – husband to pay the said amount of Rs.2,500/- to the first respondent – wife. 9 So far as the second respondent – child is concerned, it is true that the said child is in the custody of the first respondent – wife and she is taking care of the child. But, it cannot be said that the husband who is the petitioner herein need not pay any amount towards maintenance to the second respondent - child. Though the child is in the custody of the first respondent – wife, and though the first respondent – wife is employed and getting a salary of Rs.2,20,000/- p.a. she cannot fully take care of the child. Hence this court is of the view that the petitioner – husband shall be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. towards maintenance of the child instead of Rs.3,000/- as awarded by the court below. 10 Accordingly this revision is partly allowed and the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- awarded by the court below to the first respondent – wife is hereby set aside and the said amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the court below to the second respondent – child is modified and the same is reduced to Rs.1,000/- p.m from the date of petition. --------------- 22.03.2011 NN / Kvsn