HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2296 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The revision petitioner is the husband. The wife along with the minor daughter i.e., their child brought a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.55 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- to herself and Rs.1000/- to her minor daughter i.e., child of the parties respectively. 3. The learned Judge of Family Court by his order dt.29.8.2011 rejected the claim of the wife for maintenance on the ground that she herself deserted her husband and granted maintenance to the minor daughter at Rs.2000/- per month and directed the petitioner/husband to pay the same from 20.3.2007 i.e., the date of maintenance case. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised two contentions for assailing the impugned order. First is that in the maintenance case only a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month is claimed for the daughter/child but yet, the court below proceeded to grant Rs.2000/- per month in excess of the claim made and it is illegal as the court has no such power. 5. It is true that in the maintenance case a sum of Rs.1,000/- was claimed by the wife for the minor daughter. A perusal of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., would show there is nothing in it to conclude that the claim for maintenance should be restricted to the amount claimed and the amount exceeding the sum claimed cannot be granted. It may be noted that language of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. which deals with the power of the Magistrate of First Class to grant maintenance, would show that he can grant maintenance to the child at such monetary rate and as he thinks fit having regard to the needs of the claimant and the this suggests the amount may exceed the amount claimed. This provision itself thus shows that the Court can fix the maintenance exceeding the amount claimed provided the sum granted is a reasonable one. The question what is a reasonable amount depends upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be made. 6. In the instant case, since the maintenance case in the court below is of the year 2007, the court below has rightly pointed out that since 2007 the prices have gone up by the date of his order i.e., 29.8.2011 and consequently it appears that having regard to the age of the minor daughter also and the fact that she may go to school, she was awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/-, which is a reasonable amount. Thus, the fact that the court below has granted an amount which is more than the amount claimed cannot be said to be an illegality or irregularity having regard to the provisions of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. 7. The other contention of Sri Desh pande is that having found that the husband has no fixed income, the court below cannot be said to be right in fixing an amount of Rs.2000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child. There is no force in this contention also. The court below observed that the petitioner was aged about 34 years and was an able bodied person and therefore, having fathered the child, it was his duty to maintain the child and to provide for minimum reasonable requirements including education to the child. Having regard to the amount fixed, it cannot be said that the order of the court below is unreasonable. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J Dt. 18.11.2011 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2296 of 2011 DT. 18.11.2011 Mjl/*