HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.487 of 2009 Dated 07.07.2011 Between: N.R.Madhubabu. …Petitioner. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.487 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Petitioner in this revision is the husband. 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are the wife and two minor children of the petitioner. They filed M.C.No.27 of 2006 in the Family Court, Tirupathi under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The said court considering the evidence let in by both sides by its order dated 27.1.2009 partly allowed that maintenance case granting maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- each to the wife and two children. Questioning the said order, the husband has come up with this revision. 2. It is seen that the wife examined including herself 3 witnesses from her side and also filed ten documents which are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On the other hand, the husband in support of his case gave evidence as R.W.1 and he also examined four other witnesses i.e., R.Ws.2 to 5 and also filed six documents. The Family Court after considering the entire evidence let in by both sides, concluded that the husband neglected his wife and children and in that view of the matter, it granted an amount of Rs.1,000/-per month to each of them towards maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the husband assailing the order of the Family Court pointed out that the evidence let in by the husband has not been properly appreciated and it went wrong in granting maintenance. His argument is that the children are still in the custody of the petitioner and he is educating them and the wife deserted him without any cause. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the wife and children supported the Family Court’s order and argued that there is no ground to interfere with it. 5. It may be noted that this is a revision and normally this Court will not interfere with the appreciation of evidence unless the findings of the Family Court are found to be perverse and contrary to law. 6. A perusal of the reasons given by the Family Court shows that it has considered all the issues in the matter and concluded that the husband has neglected the wife and children. It may also be noted that though the wife claimed a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs.3,000/- each for her two children, the Family Court granted only Rs.1,000/- to each of them after considering the means of the husband and other aspects. 7. A perusal of the order of the Family Court would show that it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and therefore, it follows that it does not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the husband pointed out that the Family Court without recording any reasons granted Rs.1,000/- each for wife and children from the date of the petition. It is true that it has not recorded any reasons. It may however be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court in a revision is a discretionary one. 8. In the circumstances, as there is no dispute about the relationship and as both the children are daughters one aged about 11 years and the other less than 11 years and as the wife has no means at all, I am of the opinion that granting of maintenance from the date of the petition does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 9. Thus, to sum up, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the children are in the custody of the petitioner. This was however considered and rejected by the Family Court. However, if the children are now in the custody of the petitioner, it is always open for him to apply before the Family Court for alternation of the maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by proving his case on that aspect and pursue his remedies. 10. With the above observation, this revision is dismissed. ____________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 07.07.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.487 of 2009 Dated 07.07.2011