HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1260 OF 2010 DATE:02.08.2010 Between: Mustafa Aziz …… Petitioner. And: State of AP., rep. by its PP and 2 others …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1260 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is divorced husband of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is minor daughter born to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent during their lawful wedlock. Admittedly both the parties are living separately. After divorce the 2nd respondent remained unmarried. So, the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for maintenance from the petitioner as they are unable to maintain themselves. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 2nd respondent filed this petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad and also filed another petition before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) claiming maintenance and that both the petitions simultaneously are not maintainable. There is nothing which prohibits a divorced woman from claiming maintenance both under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well as under Section 3 of the Act. But, when once one court granted maintenance to the divorced wife, then the other court will have to take the order passed by the earlier court into consideration while determining quantum of compensation to be passed in the second order by the second court. 3. The petitioner is a Computer Operator. As per Ex.R-1 certificate issued by the School Authorities, he was being paid Rs.3,500/- per month as Computer Operator. The lower court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the divorced wife and Rs.3,500/- per month to the minor child, totaling Rs.4,500/- per month. This Court cannot believe that income of the petitioner is only Rs.3,500/- per month. It only shows that he was working part time in the school for Rs.3,500/- per month. If he was getting only that amount, he would not have gone for marriage much less for production of a child. All the circumstances go to show that he has got other income than as Computer Operator, which the petitioner did not disclose. The petitioner is able bodied male person and he cannot evade his liability to maintain his wife and minor child. He has to undertake every type of work and earn and then maintain his wife and his minor children. Apart from salary he has got house property from which he is stated to be getting rents. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower court rightly fixed the quantum of maintenance. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower court. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:02.08.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1260 OF 2010 Date: 02.08.2010 Gk.