THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.408 AND 503 OF 2009 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN: SMT.MEDIKONDU RUPALATHA .. PETITIONER AND STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.408 AND 503 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are directed against the order dated 17-2- 2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2008 on the file of Special Sessions Judge cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance granted from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- awarded in D.V.C.No.29 of 2007 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur dated 22.9.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of these two revisions are: Medikondu Rupalatha is wife of Medikondu Mallikarjuna Rao. Medikondu Chandrakanthamma and Medikondu Nagamohan are mother and brother of Medikondu Mallikarjuna Rao. Medikondu Rupalatha filed D.V.C.No.29 of 2007 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She claimed various amounts under different heads. It is the version of Medikondu Rupalatha that she has been driven out from the matrimonial home by her husband, mother-in-law and brother of her husband. The husband entered appearance and resisted the claim of the wife. The husband took the plea that it is the wife who left the marital home. His further plea is that his wife is adamant and became trouble some at home. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The wife got examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two more persons as P.Ws.2 and 3. The husband got himself examined as RW.1 and examined one more witness as RW.2. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, awarded maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- to wife as well as child by an order dated 22.9.2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ All the respondents are further directed to allow one of the houses for residence of the petitioner under Sec.19 of the Prohibition of women from Domestic Violence Act and finally the 1st respondent is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month towards food, clothes, medicines and other basic necessities including the school fee and house hold expenses. The said amount of Rs.5,000/- is including the medical expenses of Rs.500/- per month as granted under Sec.20 of the said Act as mentioned in the above said para NO.32.” The husband along with his mother and brother filed Crl.A.No.316 of 2008 on the file of Special Judge cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Special Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence brought on record, and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, negatived the maintenance to the wife while maintaining the maintenance granted to the child at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by the order impugned in these revisions. Hence, Crl.R.C.No.408 of 2009 is filed by the wife and Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2009 is filed by the husband. 3. Since both the revisions arise out of the same order they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the husband is getting only Rs.1,000/- as a part time lecturer and the amount is hardly sufficient to meet his both ends and therefore, the quantum of amount fixed by the appellate court needs to be reduced considerably. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the present day costs for maintenance of a child is minimum Rs.5,000/- and therefore the appellate court is not justified in interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. A further submission has been made that the husband is earning Rs.8,000/- per month and therefore the quantum of amount allowed by the appellate court is required to be enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. 7. Indisputably the wife and husband are earning members. Ofcourse, the wife has pleaded that she is no more an earning member and that she is a housewife. No evidence has been placed on record by the wife that she discontinued her employment. Both the parties did not choose to adduce any convincing evidence to substantiate their respective pleas with regard to their earnings. The appellate court having considered the status of the parties and their education, proceeded to negative the maintenance granted to the wife while allowing maintenance to the child @ Rs.3,000/-. The jurisdiction of a revisonal court in interfering with the order passed by the appellate Court is very narrow. The husband is under an obligation to maintain the child till he legally gets custody of the child. The order passed by the appellate Court granting maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month does not warrant interference. The wife while being examined as P.W.1 admits of her being employed as a teacher. Though it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the wife that she discontinued her employment, she did not choose to place on record any material to substantiate the same. Therefore, the appellate court is justified in refusing maintenance to the wife. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court. 8. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. 10th September, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.408 AND 503 OF 2009 10th SEPTEMBER, 2009.