HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1721 of 2004 O R D E R: The husband laid the present revision impugning the order of maintenance granted in favour of the minor daughter in MC No.46 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool. The wife and the daughter of the petitioner laid the maintenance case seeking maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per head. Holding that there is no proof of neglection to maintain the wife, the trial court dismissed the claim of the wife. The trial court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the minor daughter. Aggrieved by the same, the husband-petitioner preferred the present revision. 2. The right of the wife for maintenance and the liability of the husband to maintain the wife are not the subject matters before me. The question is only regarding the maintenance awarded by the Family Court in favour of the minor daughter. 3. When this revision was laid in the year 2004, an interim order had been passed granting stay of the orders in MC No.46 of 2002 subject to payment of 3/4th of the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the minor daughter with effect from 12.12.2002. 4. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contended that the amount of maintenance has been paid regularly together with arrears to the daughter of the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner is a painter and that he does not have sufficient means to pay maintenance to the minor daughter to the extent of the amount awarded by the Family Court, Kurnool. He also pointed out that false accusation was made against the husband by the wife that the husband committed an offence u/Secs.307 and 498-A IPC, which was registered as a case in SC No.96 of 2003 on the file of the Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. It would appear that the sessions case ultimately ended in acquittal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband referred to this case as a factor in favour of the petitioner that the wife is inimically disposed towards the husband and that the husband has other expenditure to attend to. 6. Sri V.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the minor daughter on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner-husband has been working as a salesman and visits Dubai quite often. It is his case that the award of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the minor daughter would meet the ends of justice. 7. The petitioner would appear to be a small trader or an employee. There is no concrete evidence in the shape of document regarding the income of the petitioner. I therefore, consider that it would be just and proper to redefine the amount of maintenance payable by the petitioner to his daughter. Under the circumstances of the case, where this court, at the time of admission of the revision, directed payment of maintenance at the rate of 3/4th of the amount awarded by the trail court, it would be just and proper to reduce the maintenance amount to 3/4th of the amount initially awarded till to day, i.e, from the date on which the order came into force. Taking the present economic factors into consideration, it would be just and proper to fix the amount of maintenance at Rs.900/- per month from today. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is ordered. The amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is reduced to Rs.750/- per month from 12.12.2002 till today i.e, on 8.7.2011. The petitioner shall further pay maintenance to his daughter, who is respondent No.2 herein at Rs.900/- per month from today onwards. If there are any arrears, the arrears shall be cleared within three months from today. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt. 08.7.2011 Mjl/*