HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.305 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed by the petitioner-husband against the order, dated 07.12.2005, passed by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in M.C.No.9 of 2003. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the above maintenance case against the petitioner herein claiming maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. each, alleging that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are their children, that the petitioner is addicted to bad vices and developed illegal intimacy with one Lakshmidevi and started neglecting them in providing food and other necessities and that they are unable to maintain themselves. 3. The petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition while admitting his relationship with respondents 1 to 3. 4. During the course of trial, on behalf of respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.10 were marked. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence, the trial Court, while holding that the 1st respondent-wife voluntarily deserted the company of the petitioner-husband and, without any sufficient reason, she refused to live with her husband, refused to award maintenance to her, but however, awarded maintenance of Rs.250/- p.m. each to respondents 2 & 3-children till they attain majority and accordingly allowed the maintenance case in part, by an order, dated 07.12.2005. The same is questioned in this revision by the petitioner-husband. 5. Heard both sides. 6. This Court perused the entire record as well as the impugned order. The trial Court discussed the entire evidence at length and gave concurrent findings and the same cannot be interfered with. In fact, the trial Court awarded only an amount of Rs.250/- p.m. each to respondents 2 and 3. The said amount, in my considered view, is very meager and is not at all sufficient in these hard days. Further, the trial Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay the maintenance awarded to respondents 2 and 3, only till they attain majority. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, while confirming the order, dated 07.12.2005, passed by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in M.C.No.9 of 2003. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 14th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.305 of 2006 DATE: 14.12.2010 Between : Gorla Venkataramana … Petitioner/ Respondent and Gorla Saradamma and others … Respondents/ Petitioners HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.305 of 2006 (Dismissed) 14th December, 2010 cbs