THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1967 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 Petitioners in M.C.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad filed this revision stating that the maintenance awarded by the said court on 02.04.2002 is inadequate. 2 This court was pleased to admit this revision on 06.01.2003. Subsequently several notices were sent to the private Respondent but the said notices were returned unserved. 3 When this matter is listed before me on 23.07.2010 the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice to the private Respondent and file proof. Thereafter on 19.08.2010 again at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner this court permitted him to take out personal notice and file proof. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registered letters sent by him are returned unserved with an endorsement ‘not claimed’ and to establish the said fact he filed the Letter No.500004-02403 addressed by the concerned post master informing as follows: “Dear Sir/Madam, In continuation of our letter regarding the Complaint No.500004-02403, it is to inform you that the complaint of Non receipt of Ack./Proof of Delivery of Registered Letters with Acknowledgement with Transaction no.1843 on 26.07.2010 of Khairatabad HO is settled on 24.08.2010 with the following information that “RL was returned to sender on 05.08.2010 with remark “NOT CLAIMED” from Jubilee Hills POSSESSION. If RL not delivered back to at sender address may be intimated to this office”. 4 As the endorsement on the registered letter is ‘not claimed’ it is deemed that the said letter has been served on the Respondent. 5 The case in brief is that the marriage of the first Petitioner was performed with the first Respondent on 12.03.1995 at Kanipakam of Chittoor District as per Hindu rites and customs without the knowledge of the parents of the first Respondent and the marriage was consummated and the same was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar of Marriages, Chittoor on 07.04.1995 and due to their wedlock they were blessed with the second Petitioner. It is further contended that the first Respondent produced 36 films and that he left the Petitioners on 14.5.2000 and that on 17.5.2000 she came to know that the first Respondent met with an accident and was admitted in Yashoda hospital, Somajiguda due to fractures. Then she rushed to the hospital but the parents of the first Respondent did not allow her to see him. Thereafter a false report was given to the police stating that the first Petitioner attempted to murder the first Respondent and she approached the competent court and obtained anticipatory bail. It is further stated that at the instance of his family members the first Respondent filed OP 649 of 2000 before the Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce wherein the Petitioners filed I.A.No.77 of 2000 for interim maintenance and the Family Court awarded Rs.5,000/- for both the Petitioners on 30.03.2001 and when the first Respondent challenged the same it was upheld by this court and the Supreme Court. It is further stated that the first Respondent is having vast properties and he is the proprietor of Taraka Prabhu Films and Taraka Prabhu Out Door Cine Services Unit and he also got a fruit bearing garden and a palatial building at Ranigunj which fetches a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-. Hence they sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to each of them. 6 As the Respondent has not chosen to contest the matter, he was set ex parte and on the material available on record, the lower court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to each of the Petitioners from the date of petition. As stated supra, the same is questioned by the Petitioners stating that it is inadequate. 7 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Respondent is the proprietor of Taraka Prabhu Films and Taraka Prabhu Out Door Cine Services Unit and has got fruit bearing garden besides a palatial building at Ranigunj and he is filthily rich. Of course, no evidence is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish the said fact. However, as the Respondent has not chosen to contest the said contentions either in the court below or before this court, this court has no option except to accept the said contentions. Unless a woman is neglected and is living separately from her husband, in the normal circumstances, she would not approach the court and file the maintenance case. Of course there may be instances where some woman may file false cases for maintenance. But, here, there is absolutely nothing to rebut the said contentions put forth by the Petitioners either in the court below or before this court. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that the said amount of maintenance as claimed by the Petitioners shall be awarded. 9 Accordingly this revision is allowed and amount of maintenance awarded by the court below at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m. is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- p.m. to each of the Petitioners. -------------- 30.09.2010 Kvsn