HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.416 OF 2005 ORDER: The respondent in M.C.No.57 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Additional M.S.J. for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum- Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, has preferred this revision assailing the orders dated 4.2.2005 of the said court in the said maintenance case, whereby the revision petitioner- respondent therein was directed to pay maintenance to the second petitioner therein who is his daughter at the rate of Rs,.1500/- per month from the date of application i.e.10.3.2004 till she attains the age of majority while dismissing the maintenance petition of the first petitioner-wife therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as there were arrayed in the maintenance case. 3. The averments in brief are that the first petitioner-wife married to respondent husband on 27.1.1999; that at the time of marriage Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, Rs.45,000/- towards clothes, Rs.25,000/- towards household articles and Rs.25,000/- towards furniture along with 15 tulas of gold were given to the respondent-husband. The petitioner wife was working as Accounts Assistant in Divisional Accounts Office, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad and that she has been hard of hearing from her childhood and she was using ear phones and the same was known to the respondent-husband. At that time, the respondent was working as Lecturer in Oxford Educational Society and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month; that out of wedlock the second petitioner was born on 19.2.2000 and that due to differences they were residing separately from 24.7.2002. 4. The counter averments are that the respondent is earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working in a private college, whereas the first petitioner is working as Central Government Employee and that he is prepared to have the custody of the second petitioner-daughter. 5. The first petitioner-wife herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1-legal notice, P.2-reply notice and P.3 –birth certificate of the second petitioner on her behalf. On the other hand, the respondent got himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1- his service certificate. 6. The trial court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that respondent- husband is working as Lecturer and is staying in Hyderabad in a rented house by paying Rs..2,000/- per month towards rent, and is also looking after his old age mother with her old age ailments, opined that he is neglecting in maintaining his wife and the second petitioner-daughter. Further, the trial court considering the qualifications, age, employment and earning capacity of the first petitioner-wife and also the requirements of the second petitioner, who is minor daughter at that time, felt that it was reasonable to award an amount of Rs.1500/- per month to the second petitioner- daughter and granted the said amount to the second petitioner-daughter from the date of the application till she attains the age of majority as has already been stated hereinabove, while dismissing the claim of the first petitioner 7. The grounds of revision petition in brief are that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective and that the trial court ought to have considered the fact that the first petitioner- wife is central government employee, drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month and as such she is able to maintain herself as well as the second petitioner. Moreover, the trial court failed to consider the plea of the respondent-husband that he was prepared to have the custody of second petitioner-minor daughter and that the trial court ought to have dismissed M.C in view of Ex.R.1- service certificate cum salary certificate, according to which, the respondent-husband was drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per month which is hardly sufficient to support his living as well as maintaining his old age mother and paying the house rent. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband raised the self same grounds as contended in the grounds of revision and further contends that the first petitioner- wife is a central government employee and since she was earning Rs.11,000/- per month at the time of the M.C. proceedings, now she must be earning more than Rs.25,000/- as such she is able to maintain herself as well as provide education and other facilities to the second petitioner-daughter and since the respondent-husband is working in a private institution and earning a meagre amount of Rs.4,000/- per month, he is unable to pay Rs.1500/- per month towards maintenance to the second petitioner- daughter. Therefore, it is contended that the revisional court may modify the impugned order of the trial court reducing the maintenance amount granted to the second petitioner drastically. 9. None appears on behalf of the first petitioner-wife and the second petitioner-daughter and there is no representation. 10. It is to be seen that during the proceedings in M.C. the respondent was working as Lecturer in a private college. Though, the first petitioner-wife is a Central Government employee, being the father, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to look after the welfare of his daughter. So far as the trial court’s direction to the respondent to pay Rs.1500/- per month towards maintenance to the second petitioner-daughter is concerned, the impugned order was passed on 04.02.2005 and the trial court taking into consideration the cost of living and the necessities of the second petitioner at relevant time, directed the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and as such, it cannot be said that the quantum of amount granted to the second petitioner-daughter towards maintenance is exorbitant. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this revisional court and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 08-04-2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.416 OF 2005 08-04-2011