HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1529 of 2010 DATE: 09.09.2010 Between: Sri M. Srinivasa Rao …… Petitioner And: Smt M. Nagarani and 3 others. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1529 of 2010 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is husband of the 1st respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3 who are minors. He is questioning order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District in M.C.No.289 of 2008 granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the minor children, totalling Rs.7,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the parties. There is no dispute that both the parties are living separately since prior to filing of the maintenance case in the lower court. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that as on today marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent was dissolved by the Secunderabad court. Even then a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance from her husband in case she remained unmarried. It is not the petitioner’s case that the 1st petitioner was married after dissolution of their marriage. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of maintenance. According to the respondents, the petitioner is running milk booth and working in Dairy Farm and earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from owning his own house. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that he is only a contractual worker in the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation earning Rs.110/- per day previously and Rs.155/- per day as on today and that the petitioner’s total income is Rs.4,500/- per month and after deducting Provident Fund etc., his net salary is only Rs.3,800/- per month and that it is not possible to pay Rs.7,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3. The minor respondents 2 and 3 are school going children. Amount of maintenance granted to the respondents 1 to 3 works out at Rs.100/- per day for the wife and Rs.67/- per day for each of the two minor children. In these days of cost of living, it cannot be said that the said amount is in any way excessive. It is contended that the petitioner has got one dumb brother and that he has no other income. Even though it is alleged that the 1st respondent is working in Bajaj Show Room and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the petitioner did not produce any proof therefor. Ex.P-2 salary certificate is not proved by examining the person who issued the same. In any event, the petitioner can work during extra hours and earn much more money, he being an able bodied male person who has got minimum duty to maintain his wife and minor children. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with order passed by the lower court. 3. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 9, 2010 Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1529 of 2010 Date:09.09.2010 Gk.