IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH (26TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.717 of 2011 Between: V.Sailaja … Petitioner And: Durga Prasad and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.717 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 17.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.146 of 2008, on the file of the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein the said appeal filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein was allowed-in- part, modifying the order dated 02.10.2008 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kurnool. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is wife of the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are parents of the first respondent. The petitioner filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2007 against the respondents for grant of protection order and for maintenance and compensation of Rs.50,000/-, besides visiting rights to visit her son, who is with the first respondent, for one day. The respondents opposed the petition by filing counter. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to take the child to the house of the petitioner once in a month and allow the petitioner to be with her son at least for one day and also directed the first respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and further directed not to harass the petitioner and also directed the first respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation for mental agony. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed appeal in Crl.A.No.146 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate to the effect of confirming the visiting rights granted to the petitioner and reducing the maintenance from Rs.3,000/- per month to Rs.1,000/- per month and setting aside the order granting protection and payment of compensation. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner, as P.W.1, has admitted in her evidence that her husband was ready and willing to take her to the house at Veldurthy and the complaint was filed only at the instance of her father to threaten the first respondent to put up a separate family at Kurnool. On re-appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge also found that all the alleged acts of violence were invented for the purpose of showing cause of action for filing the complaint and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for an order of police protection or for payment of compensation. 5. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the trial Court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas the appellate Court has reduced the same to Rs.1,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is mentally depressed and is undergoing treatment and the amount of Rs.1,000/- granted by the appellate Court is meager and there is no justification for reducing the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month granted by the trial Court. In fact, the impugned order of the appellate Court does not also record any reasons for reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- per month. 6. It is not disputed that the first respondent is an employee in private service and working in Alkalis Factory, but he denied the suggestion that he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month towards salary. According to him, he is getting only Rs.30/- per day but he did not, however, adduce any evidence in support of the said plea. As the first respondent is admittedly employed on a regular basis in the factory, it cannot be said that he is not having any means to provide maintenance to the wife. Of course, the first respondent is taking care of the child who is admittedly staying with him. 7. In the circumstances and taking the means of the first respondent into consideration and the basic needs and requirements of the petitioner, including the medical expenses, it is considered that it would be just and proper to award Rs.1,500/- per month to the petitioner from the date of this order, in view of the ever increase in the cost of living. Subject to the modification in the quantum of maintenance, as stated above, the impugned order does not call for any interference in other aspects. 8. The criminal revision case is disposed of accordingly. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th July, 2011 Lrkm.