HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2089 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case against the order in M.C. No.110 of 2008 dated 09-11-2009 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBBC – cum – Additional Family Court – cum – XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, assailing the monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- awarded to respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 herein, who are respondent and petitioner respectively in the M.C., are husband and wife respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.C. before the trial Court. 4. On 10-12-2009, while admitting this revision, this Court suspended the order under revision on condition of the respondent paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every succeeding month and also on payment of 50% of the arrears. To vacate the said order of this Court, petitioner filed Criminal R.C.M.P. No.2383 of 2011 and when the same came up for hearing, at the request of both sides, the revision itself is taken up for disposal. 5. The brief averments of the M.C. before the trail Court are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 21-03-2003 and for both of them it is second marriage. The respondent received dowry and other articles at the time of marriage and after the marriage, he started harassing the petitioner demanding her to bring additional dowry and also beating and ill treating her for the same. On 20-08-2005, the petitioner was necked out of the matrimonial house. The respondent is a businessman and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself, as such, she filed M.C. claiming a maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month. 6. The respondent filed his counter in the M.C. before the trial Court stating that he married the petitioner at the request of her parents, who are his relatives before their marriage. He denied that he received dowry at the time of marriage. On the other hand, his parents presented five tolas of gold to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is hostile towards him from the date of their marriage and she is demanding him to give divorce to his first wife and she was not willing to bear children unless he separates from his first wife. She deserted him on her own and is not willing to join him. She filed a criminal case with false allegations. He has to maintain his first wife and three children through her and his income is Rs.4,500/- per month only. He is ready and willing to receive the petitioner but she is purposefully avoiding to join him. 7. To prove her case, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and her father as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P-1. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. 8. Considering the material produced by both the parties, the trial Court observing that the marriage between the parties is subsisting and that the respondent has failed to establish the hostile attitude of the petitioner towards him, her deserting him on her own, and also her avocation and earnings and that the petitioner has no means to maintain herself, held that she is entitled to maintenance and accordingly granted a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards her maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed this revision. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision? 11. Though the respondent claimed that the petitioner is hostile towards him and deserted him on her own as he did not concede to her demand of giving divorce to his first wife and that she has earning capacity, he is unable to produce any material before this Court to prove the same except reiterating the pleas and contentions raised before the trial Court and contending that the petitioner is a lab technician and has earning capacity. In view of the same, since the marriage between the parties is subsisting and they are living separately and the petitioner has no means to maintain herself, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioner. Thus, this Court does not see any ground to allow this revision, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order under revision. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J August,18th, 2011. PV/STP