THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.255 OF 2011 DATED:14.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 20.09.2010, in Crl.P.No.88 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, wherein the said petition is allowed in part modifying the order, dated 10.05.2010, in M.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli and reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.750/-per month each to Rs.350/- per month each to the petitioners herein-children of the 1st respondent, while confirming the maintenance awarded to the wife @ Rs.1000/- per month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents on 13.07.2011 and also today. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners are the children of the 1st respondent. Petitioners along with their mother filed M.C.No.17 of 2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.3500/- to the wife and Rs.2000/- per month each to the two children. 1st respondent filed a counter opposing the same. After a due enquiry, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the wife and Rs.750/- each to the two children. Aggrieved by the same, 1st respondent filed Crl.P.No.88 of 2010. The learned Judge, Family Court, while confirming the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month awarded to the wife, however reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the children to Rs.350/- per month. Hence, the present revision by the two children. 4. Admittedly, petitioners, who are minor children, have no properties or independent source of income and they are being taken care of by their mother. The learned Judge, Family Court observed that the 1st respondent is a young man aged 32 years and is bound to maintain his wife and children. According to the 1st respondent, he is doing labour work in vegetable market. The impugned order, while noting that the 1st respondent herein, being able bodied person, has got capacity to provide maintenance to the wife and children, however reduced the amount from Rs.750/- to Rs.350/- without recording any reasons for such reduction except making an observation that the amount granted is on the higher side. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are aged 12 years and 10 years and are attending the school and keeping in view the educational and other expenses that they have to undergo, the amount of Rs.750/- per month each awarded by the trial Court cannot be considered to be excessive or exorbitant. The impugned order does not disclose any valid or justifiable reasons for reduction of the said amount and fixing the same at Rs.350/- per month. 6. In the circumstances, it is held that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court at Rs.750/- per month each to the petitioners is just and reasonable and the reduction of the same by the Family Court is unwarranted. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is restored. 7. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th July, 2011. Tsy