HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1238 AND 1508 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these revisions arise out of the order dated 30-06- 2004 in M.P. No.130 of 2004, a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance, passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case – cum – Additional Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal R.C. No.1238 of 2004 is filed by the husband - Ch. Jaganmohan Rao questioning the maintenance enhanced by the trial Court and Criminal R.C. No.1508 of 2004 is filed by the wife - C. Bhavani seeking further enhancement of the maintenance. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties in both the revisions, who are spouses, are hereinafter referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. 4. The facts, in brief, are as under: (a) The spouses are having two daughters and now they are majors. As M.C. No.40 of 1994 filed by the wife for maintenance of Rs.500/- per month was dismissed, she filed Crl.R.P. No.9 of 1996, which was also dismissed, and against the same she preferred Criminal Petition No.1697 of 1999 before this Court and this Court granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to her from November, 2001 onwards. Now, wife filed the revision for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. It was contended before the trial Court that daughter and son of the husband’s first wife are well educated and are living in U.S.A. and they are not dependent on him. Elder daughter of the spouses herein is married and their younger daughter is yet to be married. Hence, the maintenance of Rs.500/- per month is not sufficient. The husband is working as Assistant Engineer in V.T.P.S., Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, on a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, she prayed for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month. (b) The husband contended in his counter that before this Court he voluntarily offered to pay Rs.500/- per month to his wife, as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance and he also contended that he paid Rs.1,00,000/- for the marriage of their elder daughter and also promised to pay the same amount for the marriage of their younger daughter though both their daughters are employed and that he retired from service and getting a pension of Rs.9,457/- per month. 5. Considering the pleadings and the entire material on record, the trial Court enhanced the maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- per month by the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the husband is that the husband has voluntarily offered to pay Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to his wife, as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance and that his pension is not Rs.9,000/- and odd but it is only Rs.8,000/- and odd per month. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancing the maintenance ? 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the husband, husband has voluntarily offered to pay Rs.500/- per month to his wife, but the reason for the same is that he does not want to live with her. When the husband does not want to live with his wife, automatically he is liable for payment of maintenance, as such, the question of liability cannot be disputed. 10. Further, whether the husband was getting a pension of Rs.9,000/- and odd or Rs.8,000/- per month in 2004, now it must have been increased substantially. Hence, there was no justification, even on the date of the order of the trial Court, to enhance the maintenance only to Rs.1,000/- per month when the income of the husband was held to be Rs.9,000/- and odd per month. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, enhancing the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per month would be appropriate and accordingly it is ordered that the wife is entitled for maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month from 30-06-2004 onwards. 12. Accordingly, Criminal R.C. No.1508 of 2004 filed by the wife is allowed in part enhancing her monthly maintenance to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month payable by the husband from 30-06-2004 onwards; and Criminal R.C. No.1238 of 2004 filed by the husband is dismissed. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 17, 2010. PV