HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1556 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the revision petitioner against order, dated 05.08.2004, rendered in M.C.No.31 of 2002 by the Family Judge cum V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, awarding Rs.500/- per month to the respondents 1 to 3 each towards their maintenance with effect from the date of maintenance case on the ground that the revision petitioner being the husband of R1 and father of R2 and R3 and having sufficient means to maintain them, neglected and deserted them. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, and the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. For convenience I refer them as arrayed in the maintenance case. Before the enquiry Court, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and also got examined one B.Saraswathamma as P.W.2 and one B.Subbarayulu as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and further the respondent got examined himself as R.W.1 and one A.Subramanyam, T.Rangaiah, C.Ramulu and B.Ramaiah as R.Ws.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.D1 to D15 and Ex.X1. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that so far as the children are concerned, the respondent has got no objection to pay the maintenance amounts as directed by the enquiry Court, but as far as the petitioner -wife is concerned, she has been working as MPHA on contract basis under European Commission in Primary Health Centre, K.V.B.Puram since 22.07.2009 and she got means to maintain herself. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent and the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the matter properly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the maintenance case was filed in the year 2002 and therefore, the conditions then prevailing are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing necessary maintenance to the petitioners and further even according to the respondent, only during the year 2002 she got some contract employment and now she is not doing any work at all and hence there are no merits in the revision. Now, the point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are shown to set aside the order passed by the enquiry Court? Because the learned counsel for the respondent has argued only with regards to the maintenance awarded to the first petitioner, the revision is to be entertained about that aspect only. It is pertinent to note here that the maintenance case was filed in the year 2002 and therefore, the conditions prevailing at that time and later are only taken into consideration with regards to the question of awarding necessary maintenance to the first petitioner. Further, in fact a copy of service certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, K.V.B.Puram, Chittoor, filed into Court provides that she worked as MPHA temporarily on contract basis in the Primary Health Centre at K.V.B.Puram itself from 22.07.2009 to the date of issuing it, i.e.15.04.2010. But it does not provide what was her salary and how long it would continue. It is also pertinent to note that the said certificate provides that the first respondent was given only temporary employment during 22.07.2009 and to the date of issuing the said certificate. Further, subsequently if the wife became employed and she got means to maintain herself, the respondent can approach the Magistrate Court filing separate application to discontinue the payment of maintenance to the first petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the present revision case and consequently, it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 28th July, 2011. Rns