THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1248 of 2005 Date: 28.09.2011 Between: Smt. T. Uma Devi … Petitioner AND Terala Venkateshwarlu and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C. No.1248 of 2005 ORDER: The unfortunate wife in M.C.No.19 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad assailed the order in M.P.No.170 of 2003 in M.C.No.19 of 2002 dated 01.04.2004. The wife sought for enhancement of monthly maintenance from ` 500/- to ` 3,000/-. Through the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad dismissed the petition. Questioning the same, the revision is laid. 2. The revision petitioner and the first respondent were wife and husband. The wife filed O.P.No.427 of 1999 on the file of the same Court seeking divorce. O.P.No.427 of 1999 was laid on 18.02.2002. The marriage between the petitioner and her husband stood dissolved. Curiously, it would appear that no order was passed at that time under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting permanent alimony. 3. After obtaining divorce, the petitioner-wife moved the Court through M.C.No.19 of 2002 seeking to grant maintenance. The Family Court allowed M.C.No.19 of 2002 and granted maintenance at ` 1,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner-wife. Assailing the same, the husband preferred Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2002 on the file of this Court. This Court partly allowed the revision case and reduced maintenance from ` 1,000/- to ` 500/- per month. 4. While things stood thus, the petitioner-wife laid M.P.No.170 of 2003 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking for enhancement of maintenance from ` 500/- to ` 3,000/- per month. As already pointed out, the trial Court refused to do so. 5. The petitioner-wife examined herself as PW.1. She marked Ex.P.1 in support of her case. The first respondent-husband in his turn examined himself before the trial Court. The case of the petitioner is that her husband has been earning ` 30,000/- per month from his business. She deposed that her husband was running business under the name and style of Venkateshwara General Stores. Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the wife contended that the husband owned Ac.20.00 cents of agricultural land and has been earning considerable monies as agricultural income. It is his further case that the amount of ` 500/- is too meagre amount for the wife to maintain herself and that maintenance, therefore, deserves to be enhanced to ` 3,000/- per month. Albeit Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the first respondent-husband resisted the case, there is no denial that maintenance at ` 500/- is a meagre amount. The question is, however, whether the first respondent-husband is capable of maintaining the wife, so much so, he would be liable to pay maintenance at over and above ` 500/- granted by the High Court, through orders in Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2002. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the husband, the petitioner-wife failed to produce any convincing evidence regarding the income of the first respondent-husband. 6. The added factor in this case is that the contentions of the wife regarding the income of the husband are the same contentions, which are raised in M.C.No.19 of 2002. They were repelled by the High Court in Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2002. The learned trial Judge considered that the petitioner-wife was not entitled to raise the same contentions once again in this petition. I wholly agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge. After disposal of Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2002, it would not be open for the petitioner-wife to return to the same claim unless she produced concrete evidence. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not produced any evidence barring for her oral testimony to prove her claim. She failed to produce the adangals or ryot title deed or copies thereof to show that the first respondent-husband owned vast agricultural properties, let alone derived huge amounts as agricultural income. The petitioner failed to produce the licence or copy thereof of the first respondent-husband for running business as M/s.Venkateshwara General Stores. The whole evidence of PW.1 is mere ipsi dixit. This is the same situation at the time of M.C.No.19 of 2002. The High Court deemed it appropriate to grant maintenance at ` 500/- only at that point of time. 7. Obviously, the cost of living has increased many folds after 2002. However, the petitioner failed to show that the income of her husband also increased, so that the husband could decently maintain the petitioner. Where there is no evidence regarding the enhanced income of her husband and where there is no changed circumstances between the date of the orders in M.C.No.19 of 2002 in Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2002 and M.P.No.170 of 2003 in M.C.No.19 of 2002, the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the petition of the wife for enhancement of maintenance. Although the wife is an unfortunate lady, she failed to make out a case for enhancement of maintenance awarded in her favour. I see no merits in this revision. 8. The Criminal Revision Case is, consequently, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 28.09.2011 Isn