THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1940 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 07.10.2003 in CRP No.35 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said CRP No.35 of 2002 filed by the petitioner, directed him to pay maintenance to his wife and confirmed the maintenance awarded to the first respondent herein who is the son of the petitioner by the trial court. 2 Brief facts are that the first respondent and his mother filed M.C.No.16 of 2000 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- and Rs.500/- respectively from the petitioner herein. The trial court i.e. II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, having considered the said evidence, has come to the conclusion that the wife is not entitled for maintenance but the son i.e. first respondent herein is entitled for maintenance and accordingly by its order dated 21.2.2002 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m. to the first respondent herein. Questioning the said order the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2002 and the wife preferred Crl.R.P.No.26 of 2002. The lower revisional court while dismissing the Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2002 preferred by the petitioner, having re-appreciated the entire material available on record allowed the Crl.R.P.No.26 of 2002 and awarded maintenance to the wife also at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m by its common order dated 07.10.2003. Questioning the said order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge dated 07.10.2003 granting maintenance to the wife also, the petitioner preferred this revision. 3 Heard. 4 Having looked into the material available on record, this court is of the firm view that the said maintenance awarded to the first respondent is perfectly justified. In fact, the trial court itself ought to have awarded maintenance to the wife also, but as it was not done so, the wife filed Crl.R.P.No.26 of 2002. As seen from the record, the petitioner did not dispute his relationship with the first respondent herein. A mere contention that the first respondent herein is also earning Rs.70/- per day, there is no proof to establish the said fact. Hence I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the court below. 5 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 09.11.2010 Kvsn