THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.341 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The first respondent herein had filed M.C. No.31 of 2002 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, claiming Rs.8,000/- per month towards her maintenance stating that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein having blessed with three children (two sons and a daughter) who are now married and living separately. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 are hereinafter referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ respectively. It is contended in the M.C. that though the husband is working as Foreman in N.P.D.C.L., Nakkalagutta, Warangal, and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, he is neglecting in maintaining his wife and the children. The husband had filed his counter in M.C. denying the petition averments and also stated that he performed the marriage of all of his children and that due to unbearable harassment in the hands of his wife, he left the house constructed by him to his wife and two sons and is residing with his married daughter. He had also given his wife and children an extent of Ac.0-22 gts., of land abutting to 100 feet road leading from Siddardhnagar, Kazipet to Kakathiya University. He constructed a house therein and the property is worth of Rs.50,000/- and on that his wife is getting Rs.500/- per month towards lease amount. He retired from service on 31-05-2003 and he is receiving a meager monthly pension of Rs.6,938/- per month. The Court below without conducting any trial granted Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to his wife. It is the case of the husband that the trial Court relying on the proof affidavit filed by his wife in M.C. and without holding any enquiry or trial, came to the conclusion that the he has neglected to maintain his wife and accordingly, awarded 1/3rd of his monthly income towards her maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of petition. It is contended on behalf of the husband that the Family Court erred in not considering the pension payment certificate at the time of passing the impugned order that as per the said certificate, the husband was getting only a monthly pension of Rs.6,938/- after his retirement and 1/3rd thereafter comes to Rs.2,316/- per month. Therefore, it is contended that it is a fit case for reducing the monthly maintenance amount granted by the trial Court to the wife. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order of maintenance stating that the trial Court relying on the proof affidavit has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife in the M.C. towards maintenance and the same is reasonable and does not warrant interference from this Court. That after hearing both sides and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the Family Court, Warangal, without holding any enquiry and trial and just relying on proof affidavit has awarded Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the wife in M.C., is not in accordance with law, as such, this Court is of the view that the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28-10-2004 in M.C. No.31 of 2002 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, is hereby set aside and that the same is remitted to the Family Court, Warangal, for fresh disposal according to law after conducting detailed enquiry and/or trial. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. ____________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J March 04, 2011 Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.341 of 2005 March 04, 2011