IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1753 OF 2010 Between: K. Venkata Naga Narasimha Subba Rao …Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & 2 others … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1753 OF 2010 ORDER: Husband/father of the respondents 2 and 3 respectively filed this revision petition questioning maintenance order, dated 02.09.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, in M.C.No.392 of 2008, awarding Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor child. There is no dispute on relationship between the parties and on their separate living since some time prior to filing of the maintenance case in the lower Court. 2. In this revision petition, the revision petitioner’s counsel contended that the revision petitioner is not having any job whereas the second respondent is working as a Software Engineer in a reputed company and that therefore, the second respondent is not entitled for any maintenance and that in any event, the amounts of maintenance granted by the lower Court are on higher side. Before the lower Court except each of the parties examining themselves as R.W.1 and P.W.1 respectively, no evidence is let in. In this Criminal Revision Petition, Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3540 of 2010 is filed to receive certain documents as additional evidence. Subsequent to the impugned order, the second respondent filed O.P.No.875 of 2010 in the lower Court under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce against the revision petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel drew attention of this Court to paras 1 and 8 of the petition in O.P.No.875 of 2010 and contended that the petitioner is working as private employee in a reputed firm. In cause title of O.P.No.875 of 2010, the second respondent as petitioner described her avocation as housewife. A reading of paras 1 and 8 therein discloses that when she was working in a reputed firm, she obtained hand loan of Rs.40,000/- in February, 2005, from ICICI Bank and Rs.10,000/- from HDFC Bank in December, 2005. The revision petitioner also filed account slip of the second respondent under the Employee’s Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, and also pay slips of the second respondent in Cadsys (India) Limited. The said account slip is of the year 2005-2006 and the pay slips are for August, 2006. The maintenance case in the lower Court was filed by respondents 2 and 3 in the year 2008. According to the respondents’ counsel, the second respondent filed the maintenance case in the lower Court in the year 2008, after she lost her job and as she had no income from any source. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that the second respondent was having any income in the year 2008 when she approached the lower Court with the maintenance case. 3. Even though there is no evidence about income of the revision petitioner and about his avocation, the revision petitioner cannot avoid payment of maintenance to the destitute wife and minor child on that ground. He is educated and able-bodied male person who has got potentiality of making an earning. He has to earn and maintain his wife and children. Having regard to the status of the parties, the lower Court fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor child. The amount of maintenance awarded by the lower Tribunal is not in any way excessive. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 4. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 27, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1753 OF 2010 December 27, 2010 KL