IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2387 OF 2010 Between: Syed Tajuddin …Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & 2 others … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2387 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the second respondent and father of minor third respondent. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute about both the parties living separately from each other. The respondents 2 and 3 filed M.C.No.111 of 2009 in the lower Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to each of them. The lower Court after enquiry, granted maintenance of Rs.2,200/- per month to the second respondent and Rs.800/- per month to the minor third respondent. 2. In this revision petition, the petitioner’s counsel questioned quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court to the respondents 2 and 3. It is further contended that the revision petitioner filed O.P.No.203 of 2009 in the Family Court against the second respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and that it is pending. Pendency of petition for restitution of conjugal rights is no ground for refusal of maintenance to the destitute wife and minor child. In case any order is going to be passed in O.P.No.203 of 2009 in favour of the revision petitioner, then he is at liberty to approach the lower Court for varying or rescinding the order of maintenance. 3. According to the respondents 2 and 3 and the evidence of the second respondent as P.W.1, the revision petitioner is doing fruit business earning Rs.40,000/- per month. On the other hand, the revision petitioner contended and stated as R.W.1 that he is a small roadside fruit vendor earning Rs.100/- per day. The lower Court considered the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that both the versions given by P.W.1 and R.W.1 are not correct. An element of guesswork regarding income of the revision petitioner was legally made by the lower Court taking into account all the prevailing circumstances in which both the parties are living. The amount of maintenance granted by the lower Court to the respondents 2 and 3 is very meager, having regard to the present day of cost of living. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 24, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2387 OF 2010 December 24, 2010 KL