THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.296 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in M.C.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Kadapa, where-under an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the 1st petitioner, who is wife and she was granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and petitioners Nos.2 to 4, who are minor children, were granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each per month. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the lower Court. 3. According to the claim of the petitioners, the marriage was performed in the year, 1998, by then the revision petitioner was a Teacher and petitioners Nos.2 to 4 were born in lawful wedlock and thereafter, he deserted her and there was also a demand for excess dowry. The revision petitioner has got Acs.10.00 Gts., of cultivating land and he is getting a salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. The respondent has contended that the claim for maintenance is not bona fide and the relationship and the birth of the children is admitted. The misunderstandings between the revision petitioner and his wife were due to the acts of his brother and due to hatred, the wife and children have deserted. On consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and also the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, the lower Court has not accepted the contention of the respondent and granted the maintenance. 4. The point for consideration is whether the maintenance and the quantum granted by the lower Court is legal and proper? 5. POINT: So far as the relationship between the parties is concerned, there is no dispute. There is also no dispute about the fact that the wife and children of the respondent are living separately. The wife claimed that there was a demand for additional dowry and in support of it, she filed some documents. She also claimed that she was beaten and filed the record Ex.P.1, which is maintained by the hospital. There seems to be a publicity of acts of the respondent in the paper and it was also filed. Though the revision petitioner has claimed that his brother is responsible for creating the disputes, the reasons are not clear and there is no evidence to support the above contention of the revision petitioner. The fact that the respondent has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights clearly goes to show that the wife and children are living separately. That being so, the respondent has to maintain the children and the wife. He has not taken any steps for the custody of the children. The belated filing of the application for restitution of conjugal rights is no ground to accept the claim of the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the wife and children have voluntarily left the petitioners and it is quite clear that due to the disputes and the negligence only they have been living separately. It is not the case of the respondent that the wife and children have got any source income to maintain themselves. As can be seen from the salary certificate of the year 2008 the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.17,000/- per month and evidently there is an increase in the salary from time to time. Merely because at the time of admission some interim order of deposit of Rs.4,000/- was passed by this Court, it cannot be taken as a quantum to be fixed. The children are growing up and cost of living has also gone up and there is also increase in the income of the respondent and therefore it cannot be said that the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court is excess or unreasonable. In case the petitioner is successful in the application for restitution of conjugal rights, he can file application to alter the decree of order of maintenance and till then the amount has to be paid. There are no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:04-11-2011 INL