THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2006 of 2010 Dated:29th October, 2010 Between: Kojjavarapu Ravi Kumar .....Revision Petitioner AND 1. Smt.Kojjavarapu Govinda Lakshmi @ Gowri & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2006 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against order dated 13.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.346 of 2010 in O.P.No.498 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to the son from the date of the order i.e., 13.08.2010. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent herein. The respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P.No.498 of 2010 (M.C.No.498 of 2010) on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each from the date of filing of the petition. They also moved I.A.No.346 of 2010 under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each. The petitioner herein has been served with notice in the said I.A. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to grant interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to the son, by order dated 13.08.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4.. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the interim maintenance has been allowed to the respondents 1 and 2 herein by the trial Court without giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein to oppose the same. 5. As seen from the impugned order, notice has been given to the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner herein. Such is the situation, it is impermissible for the revision petitioner to contend that the order has been passed without giving him an opportunity to oppose the same. The quantum of amount allowed to the respondents 1 and 2 is also not on high side. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th October, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2006 of 2010 Dated:29th October, 2010