THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.NO.1065 OF 2008 AND CRL.R.C.NO.473 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:- Both revisions arise out of the order dated 10-01-2008 in M.C.No.91 of 2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the lower court. The petitioners’ claim that the marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the respondent on 22-05-1993 after giving some cash and other properties and thereafter the respondent has neglected and did not properly treat the petitioners and a criminal case was also filed. The respondent is said to be a Circle Inspector of Police having sufficient means and the petitioners claimed maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondent has denied the neglect and also the claim of the petitioners for separate residence and maintenance. The quantum of maintenance is high and the respondent has to maintain himself and other family members. After considering the evidence on record, the lower court has granted a sum of Rs.1,500/- each to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, Crl.R.C.473 of 2009 was filed for enhancement of the maintenance; whereas Crl.R.C.1065 of 2008 was filed by the respondent questioning the liability. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the lower court is legal and sustainable? POINT:- So far as the marriage and also the relationship with the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were living separately and a case under Section 498-A and 494 IPC was filed against the respondent. Therefore, it is quite clear that the petitioners were forced to live separately. Though some allegations were made against the petitioners about their own reason for leaving the company of the respondent, but, the respondent has not gone into the box to prove the said allegation. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the lower court granting maintenance to the petitioners is faulted. However, the petitioners claimed that the respondent was working as C.I of police and getting good income. On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondent that Kisan Vikas Patras worth nearly Rs.7 lakhs were given to the petitioners 2 and 3 and has provided them sufficient money apart from the first petitioner is said to be having some property. It is also brought to the notice of this court by the counsel for the respondent that the second petitioner is since married on 19-11-2010 and, therefore, the liability to pay maintenance ceases. But, however, so far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the counsel for the respondent says that since already sufficient money was given to the petitioners 2 and 3 and there is property of the first petitioner, it does not require any enhancement as the respondent has retired from service. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I find no merits in both the revisions and the same liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to file any application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the compensation under any changed circumstances. Accordingly, both revisions are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 28-12-2011 TSNR