HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.671 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against order dated 20.2.2004 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in M.C. No.31 of 2003 The revision petitioner and the 1st respondent are husband and wife. The respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The 1st respondent along with her children filed the Maintenance Case against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to each of them. The M.C. was contested and basing upon the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Court awarded the maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to the respondents. Aggrieved by that, the revision petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision case. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 321 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title over a three storied R.C.C. building bearing Door No. 38-39-25, Bapujinagar, 104 area in ward No.38 of Visakhapatnam bearing assessment No. 1000/894 against all the respondents and another daughter and on contest, it was dismissed holding that the 1st respondent/wife was the owner of the property whereas a copy of the corresponding judgment in the said Suit is filed before this Court which in fact was not filed before the lower Court for considering the means of the petitioners. Further, the petitioner also filed an application in M.P. No. 272/03 in M.C. No. 31/2003 for summoning the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam and the Branch Manager, Margadarsi Chit Funds, N.A.D. Kotha Road, Kotharoad, Visakhaptanam for producing a relevant statement of account and a Certificate confirming encashment of fixed deposits in the names of the respondents 1,2 and 3, M. Krishna Veni, M.Jyotsna and M. Jyothiprabha and a Certificate confirming fixed deposits lying in the names of the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, but the said application was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the corresponding fixed deposits were made only on 4.4.2003 and 14.2.2003, without any supporting material. Further it is the very claim of the revision petitioner that the respondents got sufficient means to maintain themselves and further the 2nd respondent completed M.B.A., and the third respondent did Masters’ Degree in Commerce, but the lower Court failed to examine the matter properly and came to incorrect conclusions and hence the order passed by the lower Court has to be set aside. Even though the matter is posted under the caption of ‘judgment’, no representation is made on behalf of the respondents. Hence, their arguments are closed. I have gone though the record. The record shows that the lower Court allowed the Maintenance case on the ground that the revision petitioner was working as an Officer in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam and was getting high salary and the respondents got no means to maintain themselves and accordingly awarded the maintenance amounts in question. It has to be mainly examined as to whether the lower Court properly examined the matter or not and whether it erred in coming to incorrect conclusions and as to whether the order passed by it is sustainable or not ? It is pertinent to note here that the revision petitioner/respondent filed M.P. No. 272/03 to summon the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam with regard to furnishing of statements of accounts from 1.4.2002 to till date relating to joint S.B. Account and for issuance of a Certificate confirming encashment of fixed deposits on 8.2.2003 and 11.2.2003 in the names of respondents 2 and 3 and also to cause production of Certificate confirming fixed deposits said to be lying in the names of the respondents 2 and 3 in fixed deposit Nos. 97471, 97472, dated 27.11.2002 from the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Visakhapatnam and the Branch Manager, Margadarsi Chit Funds, N.A.D. Kotha Road Branch, N.A.D. Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam and the lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the alleged deposits took place on 4.4.2003 and 14.2.2003, i.e., after filing of the maintenance case, without any supporting material. In order to dispose of the matter judiciously, entire relevant material has to be taken into consideration. In other words, it is to be examined as to whether those deposits were in the name of the respondents and also whether the 1st respondent has got any property. In those circumstances, it is necessary to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to take necessary steps to cause production of the relevant records and also get them marked before the lower Court for adducing necessary evidence. Even though a copy of the judgment in O.S. No.321 of 2004 was not filed by the revision petitioner at the earliest point of time, the same need not be taken so seriously, whereas it is necessary to consider the same while re-determining the means of the respondents. In the circumstances, the dismissal of M.P. No.272/03 is not proper. For the foregoing reason, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the orders passed by the lower Court in M.P. No. 272/03, dated 16.12.2003 and M.C. No.31/2003, dated 20.2.2004 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court for proper adjudication. The lower Court shall decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce necessary evidence taking necessary steps as observed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 27.6.2011 pnb