IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1883 OF 2007. Date:08.02.2010 Between:- Boidi Radha Rani ..Petitioner And Boidi Jyothi Prakash Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the wife under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry in C.R.P.No.35 of 2006 confirming order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in M.C.No.139 of 2004 granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife from her husband. 2. There is no dispute about relationship of wife and husband between the parties. There was previous litigation between the parties, which litigation is not much relevant for purpose of this petition. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the wife/petitioner is entitled for maintenance from her husband/1st respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. In this petition, petitioner is questioning quantum of maintenance awarded by the Courts below to her. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Courts below should have granted maintenance of at least Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner having regard to the fact that the 1st respondent is working as Engineer at Bhilai and drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Placing reliance on K.LAKSHMI VS. K.SATYANARAYANA[1], it is contended that wife of a salaried employee can claim maintenance of 1/3rd of the husband salary. Quantum of maintenance is a question of fact, which has to be decided by the Courts having regard to all the attending circumstances in which both the parties are placed. It is not a hard and fast rule that a salaried employee has to pay maintenance of 1/3rd portion of his salary to the wife towards maintenance. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant for giving immediate and consoling relief to a destitute wife, who is unable to maintain herself and with a view to provide basic minimum requirements to the wife and preventing her from starvation. Grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a luxury to be provided to the wife. Award of maintenance differs from a suit or petition on civil side for maintenance and a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before a criminal court. Having regard to circumstances of the case, the Courts below rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner. There is also no material placed by the wife to show salary particulars of the 1st respondent to the effect that he is drawing net salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to come to a different conclusion in this petition with regard to quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner. 4. It is well settled principle of law that proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for revising a revisional order passed by the Sessions Court. It amounts to entertaining a second revision petition against a revisional order and it is not permissible in law. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th February 2010 AMD [1] 1979(2) ALT 91 (NRC)