HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1276 of 2009 Date: 18-01-2010 Between: Sri Kanchi Mallikarjuna Petitioner And Kanchi Maheswari and two others Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1276 of 2009 ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed challenging the order, dated 21-05-2009 in F.C.O.P.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Nellore. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience. The first petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the second petitioner aged about 1½ years (on the date of filing of the petition) is their son. The marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent was performed on 12-05-2006 at Nellore. The first petitioner alleged that the parents of the respondent harassed her demanding additional dowry and on such demand, her parents gave Rs.75,000/- cash, 12 sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,000/- worth of household articles at the time of marriage. The first petitioner further alleges that the brother of the respondent misbehaved with her and that when she reported the matter to the respondent and his parents, they supported the brother of the respondent. It is also her allegation that the respondent has been closely moving with the wife of his brother and developed intimacy with her. It is also her allegation that the respondent and her mother demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing the house in the name of the respondent. It is also her allegation that the respondent had sent her and her minor son out of their house in April, 2008 and since then she has been residing with her parents. It is also her case that she is unable to maintain herself and depending upon the mercy of her parents and the respondent is a Painter earning Rs.3,000/- per month and having capacity to maintain the petitioners. 3. The respondent filed counter admitting his relationship with the petitioners. However, he has denied the allegation of demanding of dowry by his parents and also the contention of the first petitioner that her parents gave Rs.75,000/- cash, 12 sovereigns of gold and Rs.15,000/- worth household articles towards dowry to him. The other allegations that he is having illicit intimacy with his sister-in- law and that his brother was misbehaved with the first petitioner have been denied. It is also denied that the respondent’s mother demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and that he necked out the first petitioner and her son from his matrimonial house in April, 2008. His specific case is that the first petitioner used to quarrel with him almost everyday and that she used to leave the matrimonial house without any intimation and that the first petitioner refused to join him and that his efforts for mediation failed due to the adamant attitude of the first petitioner. The first petitioner herself was examined as PW-1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined. The respondent himself was examined as RW-1 and RWs.2 and 3 were examined in support of the case of the respondent. 4. The learned Family Judge, on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the respondent did not pay the maintenance to the petitioners though they have been residing in the parents’ house of the first petitioner, which shows that the respondent has neglected them and refused to maintain. The lower Court also observed that the respondent admitted that he is doing coolie work and earning Rs.150/- per day and that accordingly he is capable of paying maintenance to the petitioners and awarded Rs.800/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- to the second petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is a daily wage labour and that he cannot get regular work and he has to maintain his age old parents and that the amount awarded by the lower Court is excessive and therefore, reasonable amount may be ordered. It is also his version that the first petitioner has voluntarily left the company of the respondent and that inspite of issuing notice for restitution of conjugal rights and inspite of the order in O.P.No.37 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights, she refused to join the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cost of living has been increasing day by day and the amount of maintenance awarded by the lower Court is on lower side and therefore, no interference is required. 7. The only issue that arises for consideration whether the maintenance amount ordered by the lower Court is excessive or it is quite reasonable? 8. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the maintenance amount awarded at Rs.800/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- to the second petitioner is excessive and that the lower Court failed to consider that the respondent may not get regular work. 9. According to the petitioners, the respondent is working as a Painter and earning Rs.300/- per day. According to the respondent, he is doing coolie work and earning Rs.150/- per day. According to RW-3, the respondent is working as Painter and earning Rs.150/- per day. Whether the respondent is working as a painter or labourer, but admittedly his income is Rs.150/- per day. Though it may be a fact that he may not get regular work, having regard to the evidence of the first petitioner (PW-1) that the respondent knows painting work, it is clear that the respondent is able to maintain the petitioners. His income may be ranging between Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month, which establishes that he has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. 10. The amount of maintenance should be reasonable. It should be neither excessive nor to meager. In view of the cost of living and the standard of living of the parties, it appears that the amount awarded by the lower Court is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 18-01-2010 YCR