THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.435 OF 2011 DATED:21.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 15.12.2010, in M.C.No.173 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the claim of the 2nd respondent herein, was allowed in part, awarding maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Their marriage has taken place on 26.05.1991. It is not disputed that subsequently there has been estrangement between the parties. 2nd respondent filed M.C.No.173 of 2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance on the ground that the petitioner has wilfully neglected to provide any maintenance to her. According to her, petitioner is working in Chaitanya Educational Institutions and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and he also owns house property which fetches Rs.4000/- per month. Petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the petition and inter alia contending that he sold away the house site for Rs.2,70,000/- and out of the sale proceeds he deposited Rs.60,000/- in the name of the 2nd respondent herein. He further pleaded that he has been suffering from ill-health as he became disabled due to fall from the three storeyed building and therefore he is not in a position to provide any maintenance. 4. During enquiry before the trial Court, the wife was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1-certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat was marked. Petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and another witness-R.W.2 was also examined but no documents were marked. The trial Court held that the 2nd respondent herein-wife was justified in living separately from the petitioner and claiming maintenance. The said finding is not seriously disputed. Regarding the quantum, the trial Court awarded Rs.1500/- per month. 5. Though the petitioner claims that he deposited Rs.60,000/- in the name of the 2nd respondent-wife out of the sale proceeds of the house, he has not produced any evidence to show that he sold the house or that he made any deposit of Rs.60,000/- in any bank in the name of the 2nd respondent. If really the said version is true, the same admits easy verification but the petitioner has not chosen to file any document nor adduced any other evidence in that regard. The said plea therefore remained totally unsubstantiated one. That apart, Ex.P1-certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat shows that the petitioner owns two houses in Kanuru village bearing Door Nos.1-176-2 and 1-154. 6. R.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he is doing painting works in Chaitanya college. He also admits that his house consists of three floors. Under those circumstances, the trial Court has rightly taken into consideration the assets of the petitioner and his earnings as a painter in Chaitanya college and awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the 2nd respondent-wife. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is having any property or independent source of income of her own. 7. Petitioner pleads that he fell from three storeyed building and became disabled, but he has not adduced any medical evidence before the trial Court to show that he is suffering from any physical disability or that he is unable to do any work. On the other hand, the evidence on record would establish that he has been working as a painter in Chaitanya college. Under those circumstances, the amount of Rs.1500/- per month granted by the trial Court cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the ever increasing cost of living and the basic needs and requirements of the 2nd respondent for decent living. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st July, 2011. Tsy