IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1497 OF 2010 Between: Arva Kishore Babu … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1497 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the second respondent. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is no dispute that both the parties are living separately. The petitioner questions order of interim maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, dated 06.07.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.414 of 2009 in M.C.No.14 of 2009 awarding Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the second respondent from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the second respondent filed case against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C., etc., and it is pending. Though it is stated that the second respondent is working as Teacher in a private school, at this stage, no material is produced to show the same. 2. The petitioner contends that he was working as Office Boy in Congress office at Vijayawada drawing a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month and that after filing of the criminal case by the second respondent against him, he lost the said job also. The petitioner, being able-bodied male person is liable to earn and maintain his wife. He cannot evade maintenance to his wife on the ground of lack of income for him. He is capable of earning. Even an unemployed person working under N.R.E.G. Scheme of the Central Government gets about Rs.120/- per day for 100 days in a year for manual labour. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s earnings are only Rs.2,500/- per month. The amount of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded to the second respondent works out at Rs.67/- per day which is a pittance in these days. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 23, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1497 OF 2010 August 23, 2010 KL