THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.710 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 23.03.2009 passed in M.C.No.99 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. each to the children. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the petitioners in M.C.No.99 of 2008. They filed the Maintenance Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- p.m. to the petitioners 2 and 3. It is their case that the 1st petitioner was married to the respondent on 22.03.1998 at Rajahmundry according to the Hindu rites and customs. Two children were born to them out of the wedlock. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Lakshmikantham, who is working in the Telephone Department and discarded them. The respondent assaulted the 1st petitioner on 21.03.2007 and necked her out from the matrimonial home. The 1st petitioner having no other go came to her parental house along with her two children. A report came to be presented by the 1st petitioner against the respondent and the Police registered a case under Section 498-A IPC and it is stated to be pending. The 1st petitioner made her efforts to join with the respondent-husband, but the respondent- husband refused to take her and her children. Hence, the petitioners filed the maintenance case claiming maintenance. 3. The respondent/husband entered appearance and filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioners. It is stated in the counter that the respondent is getting monthly income of Rs.2,000/- and the income he is getting is hardly sufficient to maintain himself. It is further stated in the counter that the 1st petitioner used to pick up quarrels with him without any reasonable cause and that the 1st petitioner herself deserted him without any reasonable cause. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, four witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 4 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the respondent/husband, two witnesses were examined as RW.1 and RW.2 and one document was marked as Ex.R.1. 5. Learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance and accordingly, allowed the maintenance case in part granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the 1st petitioner and Rs.500/- p.m. to each of the children, by order dated 23.03.2009. The said order is assailed in this Criminal Revision Case. 6. When the revision came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the 1st respondent/wife, while being examined as PW.1, has admitted of her stating in the counter filed by her in O.P., the income of her husband as Rs.2,000/- p.m. and that subsequently she changed her version in the maintenance case and pleaded that the income of her husband as Rs.8,000/- p.m. A further submission has been made that the 1st respondent-wife having pleaded that her husband is getting Rs.8,000/- p.m., she has not substantiated the same by placing on record any convincing evidence. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the revision petitioner/husband being in possession of necessary documents as proof of income, did not produce the same and therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. A further submission has been made that the trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to each of the children and the same is not required to be interfered with in this Criminal Revision Case. 10. The point that arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case is, whether the quantum of maintenance granted to the respondents 1 to 3 herein is reasonable? 11. The marriage between the parties and also birth of the two children out of the wedlock is not in dispute. The wife pleaded that the husband is getting Rs.8,000/- p.m. and whereas, the husband pleaded that he is getting Rs.2,000/- p.m. The wife having pleaded the income of the husband as Rs.8,000/- p.m. did not produce any evidence to substantiate the same. Instead the wife filed counter in the O.P. wherein she mentioned the income of her husband as Rs.2,000/- p.m. In the absence of any convincing material, it is to be construed that the income of the husband is Rs.2,000/- p.m. Keeping in view the income of the husband, I deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.500/- p.m. while maintaining the amount allowed to the children at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. each. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:03rd August, 2009. cs