THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.264 of 2004 ORDER This revision is directed against the docket order, dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in M.P.No.635 of 2003 in M.C.No.141 of 2003, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance. 2. The brief facts are that the first respondent-wife filed M.C.No.141 of 2003 against the petitioner-husband for grant of maintenance. In the said case, she filed M.P.No.635 of 2003 for grant of interim maintenance pending disposal of the main case, stating that she was hospitalized for a period of four months and she is depending upon his mother. She states that the petitioner is earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- as Driver. The trial Court after hearing both sides granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/-per month payable by the petitioner to the respondent till disposal of the main case. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this revision. 3. Heard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the parties was dissolved by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent vide order, dated 23.07.2001 in O.P.No.2 of 2001 and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have granted interim maintenance to the respondent. 5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that by order, dated 23.07.2001, the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakahapatnam, dissolved the marriage between the parties by granting a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Thereafter, the said Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/-per month to the respondent on 23.12.2003 in the maintenance case filed by her. The factum of decree of divorce between the parties can as well be brought to the notice of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein M.C.No.141 of 2003 filed for maintenance is pending. Further, the interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court is only at Rs.500/-per month, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, I see no merits in this revision. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:15.12.2010 sj