THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1011 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 9.4.2004 passed in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2003 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal enhancing the maintenance amount granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal in M.C.No.26 of 2002 by order dated 16.10.2003. The wife, who is arrayed as 1st respondent herein, filed M.C.No.14 of 1992 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal allowed the said M.C. and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. Subsequently, she filed M.C.No.26 of 2002 before the learned Magistrate seeking enhancement of the said maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.8,000/-. However, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 16.10.2003 allowed the said application in part and enhanced the maintenance to Rs.1,500/- p.m. The same is questioned by the wife by filing Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2003 before the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and awarded maintenance by enhancing the same to Rs.3,250/- p.m., with effect from the date of petition i.e., 11.12.2002. The same is questioned by the husband in this revision. While admitting the revision case, this Court refused to grant any interim relief. Heard. Perused the material available on record. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the maintenance was already awarded in M.C.No.14 of 1992 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the second application filed under the same provision is not maintainable. It is further submitted that if the wife seeks enhancement of maintenance, she ought to have filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., but not another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I am in total agreement with the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge while taking into consideration the said aspect, treated the said application as one filed under section 127 Cr.P.C., and allowed the revision enhancing the maintenance to Rs.3,250/- with effect from the date of petition viz., date of filing of M.C.No.26 of 2002, but not from the date of filing of the earlier petition in M.C.No.14 of 1992. The material on record goes to show that the petitioner admitted in his evidence that he is getting monthly salary of Rs.13,000/-. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the said enhancement cannot be said to be excessive. However, as the petitioner approached this Court and filed this revision by incurring so much of expenditure, the said amount of Rs.3,500/- is reduced by Rs.500/- and accordingly, the petitioner-husband is hereby directed to pay the entire arrears at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m., towards maintenance to the respondent-wife and continue to pay at the same rate every month on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Except to the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. _____________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 24th February 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1011 of 2004 24.2.2011