THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4512 of 2011 ORDER:- Petitioner is the husband. His wife filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for herself and her two daughters. That maintenance case which is M.C.No.4 of 2009 was partly allowed by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Proh. & Excise Offences), Nalgonda (trial Court), on 11.03.2010 granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- each to the two daughters. Questioning the said order the petitioner filed revision i.e. Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2011 in the Court of the Family Court-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (Family Court), and the said Family Court dismissed that revision by its order dated 18.04.2011. Questioning that order the petitioner has come up with this quash petition. 2. Sri Venkat Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised several contentions. One of the contentions is that the petitioner was not served with notice at all in the proceedings before the trial Court and he was set ex parte without any justification and that this fact has been ignored by the learned Judge of the Family Court. A perusal of the order of the Judge, Family Court, shows that before him the petitioner took a plea that some body could have represented him in the trial Court. The Family Court expressly recorded this contention and observed that if that is so the petitioner could have moved an application before the trial Court itself for setting aside the ex parte order and having not done that it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the correctness of the trial Court’s order. It may also be noted that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. The Family Court considered the matter and held that the amounts granted by the trial Court towards maintenance are reasonable. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Family Court as it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that both daughters of the petitioner have now become majors and are not eligible for maintenance for various reasons. If that is so it shall be open for the petitioner to make an application before the trial Court setting forth his pleas which may be favourable for alteration of the maintenance order granted by the trial Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 14th June, 2011 CVRK