THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.4038 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition arises out of an order passed in M.C.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet, which was confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet. The first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the son of the petitioner. They claimed that the marriage with the revision petitioner was performed in 1989. At the time of marriage, some silver and gold ornaments besides cash were presented and the petitioner herein is deserted the wife. They are not able to maintain by themselves. The petitioner is a teacher getting salary of Rs.8,500/- per month and consequently they claimed maintenance of Rs.3000/- for the first respondent and Rs.2,000/- for the second respondent herein. The petitioner herein filed a counter admitting the marriage but denied the desertion. He pleaded that his wife left the society in the year 1991 and did not join him inspite of legal notice and also he filed divorce O.P.No.80 of 1997 which was withdrawn. The first respondent has filed a case one under Section 498-A IPC and further she is cultivating the land of the petitioner and she herself is earning Rs.100/- per day. On the basis of the conflict stands taken by the parties, evidence was let in and on behalf of the respondents PWs.1 to 3 were examined and salary certificate of the petitioner was got marked. The petitioner herein himself was examined as RW.1 and another person was examined as RW.2 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. After considering the material evidence on record, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month each to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2009 was preferred and the VI Additional District Judge, Medak confirmed the said order. The present application is filed to quash the proceedings. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds to quash the orders passed by the courts below? POINT:- According to the claim of the petitioner herein, there was no desertion and on the other hand the wife herself left the society and grant of maintenance is not valid. It is not in dispute that the second respondent herein was born in lawful wedlock and both the respondents are living separately. The question for consideration in this case is as to whether the respondents are able to maintain by themselves. Though the petitioner herein claims that the first respondent is cultivating the land belonging to him and also occupation of the house, evidently, there is no proof of income from that agricultural land. Even other wise, she is entitled for residential provision. If the first respondent is in illegal occupation of any of the properties of the petitioner, he can claim rights. But, however, the rights of his son who is the second respondent cannot be ignored. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that grant of maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month is not proper. It was pleaded by him that the first respondent was earning by tailoring work and also other source of income. Evidently, the place where the parties reside is a village and earning huge amount by tailoring work is improbable. Further more, there is no proof filed by the petitioner as to the income from the agricultural land which is said to be in the illegal occupation of the first respondent. As such, the liability of the petitioner herein cannot be doubted. Sofar as his earning capacity is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner contends that he has to maintain his aged mother and salary drawn by him is not sufficient. It is to be noted that the obligation of the petitioner is to maintain his wife and children. Though by the time of filing of the application, his salary may be Rs.8,500/- but now the salaries of the teachers have been increased and he must be getting nearly Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- towards salary. Therefore, in view of the above circumstance, the quantum of maintenance granted by the courts below cannot said to be excessive or unreasonable. The amounts granted are reasonable particularly in the present day of conditions of living. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 02-08-2011 TSNR