HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1239 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in Crl.M.P..No.2169 of 2009 in D.V.C.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV- Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, whereby the Magistrate, having considered the submissions of the 2nd respondent/wife, passed the following order: “Heard. Perused the records. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner. The 1st of such payment shall be made on or before 7.7.2009 and the remaining payments before 7th of every succeeding month and R1 to R6 are restrained to enter into the residential premises of the petitioner. Issue notice to R1 to R6.” Brief case of the 2nd respondent-wife is that she married the 1st petitioner herein on 12.6.1994 and at the time of marriage, her parents paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and also gave 25 tolas of gold ornaments, silver articles, clothes and household articles as per the demand of the petitioners herein. It is stated that immediately after the marriage, the 2nd respondent joined the company of the 1st petitioner and that the petitioners herein started ill-treating the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that out of the wedlock, they were blessed with three sons. Subsequently, in the year 1995, since the petitioners 2, 4 and 5 herein beat the 2nd respondent mercilessly, the parents of the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the police and that the police made mediation and on the advice of the police, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent were living separately. Subsequently, in the year 2004, the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner purchased a house at Amberpet for a sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, out of which the 2nd respondent contributed Rs.1,25,000/- by selling her gold ornaments and her father contributed Rs.2,00,000/- and that they along with their children shifted to the said house and even thereafter the petitioners used to involve in their matrimonial life and continued to harass and torture her along with the 1st petitioner. It is further stated that unable to bear the said harassment and torture, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, C.C.S. Hyderabad and that the police registered it as a case in Crime No.118 of 2009 against the petitioners herein. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner herein filed O.P.No.447 of 2009 on the file of Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderation, for permanent injunction in respect of the house in question against the 2nd respondent and her parents with false and untenable allegations and the same is pending. It is further stated that the petitioners herein threatened the 2nd respondent to vacate the house where she is residing and thereafter the 2nd respondent filed D.V.C.No.8 of 2009 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking various reliefs. Along with the said D.V.C. she also filed the present Crl.M.P.No.2169 of 2009, inter alia, seeking protection order and also an amount of Rs.15,000/- per months towards maintenance and that the Court below passed the aforesaid impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner/husband is working as Record Assistant and is drawing a net salary of Rs.7,123/- only and it is not possible for him to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/wife during the pendency of the D.V.C.No.8 of 2009. He further submits that the house wherein the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent were living together before filing the said D.V.C was purchased by the 1st petitioner and by virtue of the interim order passed by the trial Court the petitioners herein were restrained from entering into the said house, which is causing any amount of inconvenience. In support of the said submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the salary certificate of the 1st petitioner and also the registered sale deed in respect of the house in question. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/wife submits that since the date of marriage the 2nd respondent was ill-treated, harassed and threatened by the petitioners herein and therefore she filed the said D.V.C and that the interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month granted by the trial Court is not sufficient to meet their livelihood and also to the educational expenses of her children. He further submits that if the petitioners herein are allowed to enter into the residential premises of the 2nd respondent herein, it leads to further harassment and as such the petitioners herein may be restrained from entering into the residential premises of the 2nd respondent herein. From a perusal of the salary certificate of the 1st petitioner/husband, it is clear that the 1st petitioner is getting gross salary of Rs.13,755/- and after deductions he is getting a net salary of Rs.7,123/-. Further from a perusal of the sale deed dated 08.11.2004, it is clear that the 1st petitioner/husband by name M.Swaraj is the vendee and the house prima facie belongs to him. When once it is a house purchased by the 1st petitioner/husband, in my considered view, the Court below ought not to have restrained the 1st petitioner and other family members from entering into the residential premises in question. Having taken all the circumstances into consideration, this Court permits the petitioners herein to enter into the residential premises in question. Since the 1st petitioner is drawing gross salary of Rs.13,755/- and the 2nd respondent/wife and her two children require substantial amount to meet their expenses, this Court is of the view that the interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month granted by the Court below is reduced to Rs.5,000/- and the said amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid by the 1st petitioner/husband to the 2nd respondent/wife every month as ordered by the Court below. However, as it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/wife that if the petitioners are permitted to enter into the house in question, they may again harass the 2nd respondent/wife, it is made clear that the 2nd respondent/wife may reside elsewhere during the pendency of the said D.V.C.No.8 of 2009. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _ _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29-11-2010 Gsn.