THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.255 OF 2009 Date: 5th November, 2011 Between: Gopu Venkataranga Mohanarao …..Petitioner And Gopu Sangeetha and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.255 OF 2009 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed in M.C.No.15 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, questioning the grant of maintenance to the respondent. According to the case of the revision petitioner, though the marriage was solemnized on 27.1.2001 in spite of love and affection shown by the petitioner, the respondent has voluntarily left the company and the respondent was said to be having love affair with another person and therefore, the claim for maintenance is not sustainable. The petitioner also claimed that he filed an application for divorce in O.P.No.254 of 2006 and it is pending. The petitioner denied that he was running a business in the name and style of Sri Sangeetha Cartons and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner contended that he has no source of income and he was only employed as a Clerk in a private shop and getting a salary of Rs.2,000/- only and therefore, the maintenance claim is not sustainable. After considering the evidence, the learned Judge granted maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The point that arises for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled for maintenance and if so, to what amount? POINT: The fact that the petitioner and respondent are living separately is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner herein attributes some unchastity conduct and acquaintance with another person is a sufficient ground to live separately. Added to that, the petitioner herein has filed an application for dissolution of the marriage. There is no material to consider that the respondent has got any source of income to maintain herself. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the claim of the respondent petitioner under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) is sustainable. The further question is that as to whether the quantum of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month granted by the lower court is reasonable. Admittedly, the petitioner herein does not own any immovable properties or any other source of income. He is said to be running a business and there is no material on record to show as to what was the turnover and what was the investment and what was the income he was relying. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that as the business has gone into losses, it was closed and he was under private employment. At the same time, the petitioner has also not produced any material evidence to show that the business was closed or that he employed with some other person and the salary received by him. Therefore, taking into consideration the status of the parties, the need and also the probable earning capacity of the petitioner herein, I feel to meet the ends of justice, the maintenance is fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondent is at liberty to seek for modification in future by showing sufficient reason. The revision petitioner is also directed to deposit the entire arrears within three months from today. Accordingly, the revision case is partly allowed. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 5th November, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.255 OF 2009 DATE: 05-11-2011 TJMR