HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1926 of 2010 DATE:27.12.2010 Between: Gugulothu Venkateswarlu …… Petitioner And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P And others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1926 of 2010 ORDER: Husband/father of the respondents 2 and 3 respectively questions order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodad in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2010 in M.C. No.20 of 2004 (mistake for M.C. No.20 of 2003). There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute about both the parties living separately since prior to filing of the petition in the lower Court. 2) In M.C. No.20 of 2003 filed by the wife and minor son, the Magistrate awarded interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of them totalling Rs.6,000/-. The 2nd respondent/wife also filed C.C. No.145 of 2004 against the revision petitioner and it was pending. There was reference of both the matters to Lok Adalat where Ex.P-1 award was passed. As per Ex.P-1, the revision petitioner has to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents 2 and 3 put together. Due to increase in cost of living and increase in salary of the revision petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 sought for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.30,000/- per month. The lower Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.6,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of them. 3) The revision petitioner is working as Reservoir Engineer in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, presently at Karaikal of Pondichery. According to the respondents 2 and 3, he is now drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. The revision petitioner contended that he is only getting salary of Rs.42,000/- per month. He did not file his present pay slip in the lower Court. Having regard to the enhancement in cost of living and enhancement in salary of the revision petitioner and also status of the parties and requirements of the respondents 2 and 3, the lower Court enhanced the maintenance amount. The said enhancement is not in any way excessive. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower Court. 4) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Dated 27th December, 2010 ksh