HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2833 OF 2008 DATE: 18-08-2011 BETWEEN: Soppari Madhu. - - - Petitioner/ Revision Petitioner/ Respondent. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Soppari Kavitha. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioner. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2833 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 11-09-2007 in Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2006, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad and corresponding order dated 18-09-2006 in Maintenance Case No.28 of 2003, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Respondent (Husband), the Respondent Nos. 2 is the Petitioner (Wife) in M.C. No.28 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case. 3. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to the Respondent No.2 from the date of order and the revision Court confirmed the amount but modified that it should be paid with effect from the date of petition. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and the Respondent neglected her on the ground that she suppressed her skin disease before marriage and he also started demanding additional dowry and thereafter without any reason he deserted her, whereas after due enquiry, the enquiry Court awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to her from the date of order i.e., from 18-09-2006 and aggrieved by the same the Respondent filed the Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2006, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court confirming the order passed in M.C. No.28 of 2003. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent/Husband that he has been doing a part time job in the Cable Operator’s office of RW.2 as collection boy and as per the evidence of his Employer-RW.2 coupled with the salary certificate issued by him which was marked as Ex.R-1 he was getting a monthly income of Rs.1,200/- only and no other evidence was placed before the Court by the Petitioner with regards to his otherwise income and as such the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence the maintenance awarded to the Petitioner is not tenable. He asserts that when he is getting only an amount of Rs.1,200/- p.m. it is not possible to maintain himself every month with that meager amount. 6. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for Petitioner/wife that the income of the respondent as stated by his Employer-RW.2 cannot be believed in the present day circumstances and in fact, in the Original Petition No.77 of 2004 filed by the Petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, the respondent described himself as a businessman and as a businessman he would earn good amount every month and therefore it cannot be said that awarding the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to her is exorbitant in these days and hence there are no merits in the claim of the Respondent and accordingly the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to upheld the claim of the Respondent/Husband? 8. I have gone through the record and as per the version of RW.2, the respondent is working as cable operator in his office earning an amount of Rs.1,200/- p.m. No other record was filed before the Court by RW.2 and if his claim is true, definitely he would have maintained relevant acquaintance register, which can actually determine the real income of the Respondent and for not doing so, an adverse inference can be drawn. Admittedly, now-a-days even an ordinary coolie can earn an amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. Further, there is no cogent and acceptable evidence to consider that the Respondent is a businessman. Further, without marking the O.P. Copy the same cannot be considered. Therefore, it is reasonable to fix the income of the Respondent at Rs.3,000/- p.m. 9. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Husband has also represented that the Petitioner has been residing along with her parents and she is also earning sufficiently by doing tailoring works whereas the Respondent has to incur certain amount for his shelter apart from his maintenance otherwise. 10. Examining all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, instead of an amount of Rs.1,500/- p.m. awarded to the Petitioner, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to award an amount of Rs.1,300/- p.m. to the Petitioner from the date of petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed subject to the observation that the Petitioner is entitled to the maintenance of Rs.1,300/- p.m. from the date of petition instead of Rs.1,500/- as awarded by the Courts below. Accordingly she can claim arrears of maintenance. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 18-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 234 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2833 OF 2008 August, 18, 2011 DSH