THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.553 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging order made in M.C.No.147 of 1996 dated 27.4.2001 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition filed by wife, 1st respondent herein against her husband i.e. the revision petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was allowed and he was directed to pay maintenance to the wife-first respondent @ Rs.500/- per month from the date of petition i.e. 13.8.1996. Even though the matter is listed under the caption of passing orders, no body was represented and hence the arguments closed. 2. It is contended in the memorandum of Criminal Revision Case that the Court below failed to appreciate the matter properly that the revision petitioner has no capacity to pay maintenance to his wife that in fact he has been depending upon his mother and brother for his maintenance and that therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 3. Now the point for consideration in this revision is whether the Court below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and the order is tenable or not. 4. On behalf of the wife/1st respondent, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and on behalf of the husband/revision petitioner, he got himself examined as R.W.1. 5. Having perused the order of the Court below and other material made available on record, I am of the view that the lower Court properly examined the evidence adduced and arrived at correct conclusions in the matter. It is pertinent to note here that the Court below awarded only Rs.500/- per month to the first respondent from the date of petition, examining the status of her and the husband. In fact, it was admitted by the revision petitioner that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.500/- and not Rs.4000/- as claimed by his wife. When such admission of the revision petitioner is there and even supposing that it is true, it cannot be accepted that he is dependant upon his mother and brother for his maintenance. Further, he should have produced some record to the effect that he was getting salary of Rs.500/- per month, for which adverse inference has to be drawn. Further, nowadays by doing coolie work also, one can easily earn Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per month. Even otherwise, having married a lady, he is expected to do some physical work and maintain her under any circumstances and he cannot be allowed to state that he got no earning capacity to maintain his wife, unless necessary evidence is placed before the Court in that context. Further, there is no basis to say that she got means to maintain herself. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dt.14.6.2011 DA