THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.844 of 2009 Dated: 20th August, 2009 Between: Rachakonda Balakrishna …Petitioner and 1.The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & Ors. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.844 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 19.02.2009 passed in M.C.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Prakasam at Ongole, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the son while refusing maintenance to the wife. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this revision by the husband are: a) The petitioner and the 2nd respondent got married on 20.10.2002. A child was born to them and he is no other than the 3rd respondent herein. Some disputes arose between the parties and thereupon they fell apart. The wife filed complaint against the husband, which is the subject matter of Crime No.199 of 2007 of Ongole II town Police Station registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The wife filed M.C.No.26 of 2009 claiming maintenance to herself and the child at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- p.m. respectively. b) The husband entered appearance and filed counter resisting the claim of the wife and the child. The husband took the plea that the wife discarded him without any reasonable excuse and therefore, they are not entitled for any maintenance. c) The wife got herself examined as PW.1 besides examining two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. The husband got himself examined as RW.1 besides examining two more witnesses as RWs.2 and 3 and marked C.C. of execution petition in E.P.No.39 of 2007 in O.S.No.79 of 2005 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, as Ex.B1. d) The learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the child while refusing maintenance to the wife, by order dated 19.02.2009. Hence, this revision. 3. When the revision came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the trial Court missed to take note of the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in the form of 15 Indira Visaka Patras and had this been taken note of, the interest accrued on the deposits sufficient to meet the maintenance of the child. 6. It appears the Indira Vikasa Patras are not in the name of the wife, in which case, it cannot be construed that the wife is entitled to claim interest accrued thereon. Indisputably, the child is in the custody of the wife. So long as the child is in the custody of the wife, there is obligation on the part of the husband to maintain the child. The leaned Judge of the Family Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the child. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers either under Section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:20th August, 2009. cs