IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1732 OF 2010 Between: Sikinam Veereswara Rao …Petitioner And Sikinam Sujatha & 2 others … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1732 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute about both the parties living separately since some time prior to filing of the petition in the lower Court. The Judge, Family Court, Guntur, by the impugned order, dated 10.08.2010, in M.C.No.35 of 2009, awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even though the petitioner requested the first respondent to join him, the first respondent is refusing to join his company and that, therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for maintenance. But, the petitioner did not take any steps under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the first respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, the first respondent herself filed H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2009 in the lower Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights; and after enquiry, it was allowed by the lower Court simultaneously. The common order reads that the petitioner did not agree for restitution of conjugal rights, but contested the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. It shows that the petitioner is not interested to take back the first respondent and to maintain her. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is working as attender in Irrigation Department and that he got the said job after his father took voluntary retirement on medical grounds. Therefore, he has got liability to maintain his parents also. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner is drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner did not file his pay slip to show his gross salary. Even a new entrant in service as attender in Government Department these days will get salary around Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. Having regard to the status of the parties and need of the first respondent/wife and the second respondent/school going minor child, the lower Court rightly awarded the maintenance amounts as indicated above. The maintenance amounts awarded are not unjust or unreasonable. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 28, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1732 OF 2010 December 28, 2010 KL