HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2124 OF 2009 Dated : 09.08.2010. Between : Dzmitrenka Siarhei … Petitioner-accused a n d The State of A.P. … Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2124 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners-respondents being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.11.2009 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2009 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad. Initially, the petitioner-wife, approached the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, with Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2009 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 seeking to seeking to grant interim maintenance of Rs.25000/- each to the petitioners under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act’), upon which, the learned Magistrate by common order dated 10.07.2009 directed the second respondent-husband to pay Rs.4000/- to the wife and Rs.3000/- to the child per month towards maintenance apart from granting other reliefs in favour of the wife. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, wife filed the impugned petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance amount, upon which, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.7,000/-. Challenging the same, the husband filed the present revision. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the wife is having residential order in her favour, the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Sessions Judge is too high and so he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the status of the husband in the society, who is getting salary of Rs.36,000/- per month, the amount of Rs.10,000/- is just in order to maintain the same status by the wife in the society and as such the said amount cannot be said to be too high. This Court perused the entire record. From affidavits and counter affidavits of both the parties in various petitions, more particularly from the impugned order, it is clear that the husband is an employee of Polaris IT Company and working at Bahrain. It is also evident from the record that the husband is having an own house standing in his house apart from the fact that the father of the husband, who is petitioner No.2 herein, is also having an own house. Thus, all these aspects clearly establish the fact that the husband is enjoying good financial status in the Society, which certainly has to be enjoyed by his wife and child on par with him. In these circumstances and also in view of the rise in prices, the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- can not be said to be too high and existence of residential order is favour of the wife will not come in the way of granting interim maintenance to her and the child. Thus, I hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the financial status of the husband and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and the impugned order is passed in accordance with law. However, considering the nature of allegations wherein the question of identity of the accused does not arise, the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 is hereby dispensed with except on the dates the trial Judge insists for the same. With above observation, the criminal revision case is dismissed. In view of the disposal of main criminal revision case itself, the miscellaneous petitions filed in the criminal revision case shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 09.08.2010 sur