THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1688 of 2008 Date:30th November, 2010 Between: Sistu Venkata Surya Narayana Murthy .....Revision Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1688 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against order dated 21.10.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2008 in M.C.No.278 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.600/- p.m. to Rs.10,000/- p.m. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner are: The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are husband and wife respectively. Their marital life ran into rough weather. Therefore, the wife along with two children filed M.C.No.278 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. On behalf of the wife, she got herself examined as PW.1 and exhibited 3 documents as Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the husband, he got himself examined as RW.1 and exhibited 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. The learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, granted maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. and Rs.1000/- p.m. to the two children, by order dated 05.08.2006. The relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder: “In the result, this petition is allowed directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.600/- p.m. to the first petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and the respondent is further directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to each of second and third petitioners per month till they attained majority and shall continue to pay the said sum of Rs.600/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Two months time is granted to the respondent for paying arrears of maintenance. Respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- towards costs of this petition to the petitioners.” The wife filed Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2008 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. The wife got herself examined as P.W.1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The husband got himself examined as RW.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.600/- p.m. to Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the date of filing the petition, by order dated 21.10.2008. The said order is under challenge in this revision filed by the husband. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/wife. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the maintenance granted to the 2nd respondent/wife has been enhanced by the learned Judge of the Family Court from Rs.600/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. without there being any basis and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is required to be quashed. Learned counsel took me to the documents placed on record by the wife to substantiate his contention that the income of the husband taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Rs.40,000/- p.m. has no reasoning. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/wife submits that the petitioner/husband having concealed the best available evidence with him cannot be permitted to contend that the income of the petitioner/husband arrived at by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Rs.40,000/- p.m. has no basis. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. The wife was initially granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. on 05.08.2006 in M.C.No.278 of 2004. Two years thereafter, she filed Crl.M.P.No.146 of 2008 initially claiming enhancement of maintenance from Rs.600/- p.m. to Rs.3,000/- p.m. and subsequently amended her prayer seeking enhancement from Rs.600/- p.m. to Rs.10,000/- p.m. The learned Judge of the Family Court has taken into consideration Exs.P3 and P4 salary particulars of the petitioner/husband summoned from the concerned bank. Even as per the salary particulars, the amount credited to the account of the petitioner/husband in the month of June, 2008 is Rs.28,000/- and the amount credited to the account of the petitioner in the month of July, 2008 is Rs.31,000/-, but the learned Judge took the income of the husband at Rs.40,000/- p.m. from all sources. There is no basis for the learned Judge of the Family Court for arriving the income of the husband at Rs.40,000/- p.m. Even Exs.P3 and P4 are taken into consideration, his income at the most be Rs.31,000/- p.m. for the latest month. Keeping in view the original maintenance granted and the present salary of the petitioner, the enhancement of maintenance to the wife from Rs.600/- to Rs.7,500/- p.m. would be quite reasonable. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the enhanced maintenance amount to the 2nd respondent/wife from Rs.10,000/- p.m. to Rs.7,500/- p.m. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:30th November, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1688 of 2008 Date:30th November, 2010