HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1534 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner’s counsel is absent today also, in spite of the matter being listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. There is no representation. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue this revision petition. 2. The petitioner is husband of the 1st respondent and father of the minor respondents 2 and 3. The lower Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the minors each under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and did not grant interim maintenance to the 1st respondent/wife. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute about both the parties living separately from each other. Even though the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st respondent, no such steps are taken for custody of the minor children, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein. 3. The dispute appears to be only with regard to the quantum of interim maintenance. Interim maintenance granted by the lower Court works out at Rs.50 per day, which is a pittance in these days. According to the petitioner, he is a daily wage worker. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the petitioner is doing finance business and owns two auto rickshaws and earns Rs.15,000 per month. That apart, the petitioner is an able bodied male individual and he has to work hard and maintain minor children. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. -09-09-2010 Mjl/*