THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1208 & 1209 OF 2010. Dated:02.07.2010 Between:- Yenugu Ravi ....Petitioner/Appellant And Yenugu Siva Parvathi & another. .... Respondents COMMON ORDER: The petitioner, who is husband of the 1st respondent, questions in these revision cases order, dated 15-04-2010, passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur in Crl.A.Nos.395 of 2009 and 70 of 2010. 2. Originally, the 1st respondent filed D.V.C.No.6 of 2008 before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur for several reliefs against the petitioner and his relations. The trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the minor son and disallowed further reliefs. Thereupon, both the petitioner and the 1st respondent filed the above two appeals in the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court while modifying maintenance amount awarded to the minor son from Rs.3000/- to Rs.2000/- per month, further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the wife as maintenance apart from giving certain other directions. Petitioner questions herein only maintenance granted to the 1st respondent. 3. There is no dispute that both the parties are residing separately since prior to filing of D.V.C. by the 1st respondent in the trial Court. The petitioner is not maintaining the 1st respondent and is not paying any maintenance to her since then. It amounts to economic abuse by the petitioner as per Clause (iv) of Explanation I to Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, inasmuch as it is deprivation of financial recourses to which the aggrieved person, who is the wife, is entitled under law. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is only a worker in the press. On the other hand, it is the 1st respondent’s evidence that the petitioner is the owner of ‘Tejaswini Printers’ located at ECIL colony, Hyderabad. The petitioner as R.W.1 did not even give his salary particulars in his evidence, but only stated that he was getting meagre income. The petitioner did not file any record to show that he was employed in that press and that the press owner is paying contributions under the Labour Enactments. The petitioner is not questioning order of maintenance granted by the Courts below finally at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month to his minor child. In these revision petitions, disputed questions of fact relating to income of the petitioner cannot be canvassed. I see no merits in these revision petitions. 5. Accordingly, both the Revision petitions are dismissed. _​__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 02nd July, 2010 Tsy