HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2229 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 28-09-2010 passed in M.C.No.129 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application filed by the wife and the daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the daughter of the petitioner herein. 2. The background facts, in nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the husband are:- The petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife and the second respondent is their daughter. The husband is working in Telephone Department at Nizamabad. The wife and the daughter filed M.C.No.129 of 2008 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each. The husband filed counter resisting the claim made by the wife and the daughter. 3. On behalf of the wife, she got herself examined as P.W.1 and on behalf of the husband, he got himself examined as R.W.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that wife and the daughter are entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively and accordingly allowed the M.C by order dated 28- 09-2010. The said order is assailed in this revision by the husband. 4. The revision came to be admitted on 02-12-2010. An interim order came to be granted on the even date v i d e Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3338 of 2010. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1159 of 2011 seeking permission to withdraw the amount. When the Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1159 of 2011 came up for consideration, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the revision case is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and thereby erred in granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. In a way, his contention is that the quantum of amount allowed to the wife and the daughter is on high side. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner, while being examined as R.W.1, admitted his monthly salary as Rs.30,000/- and the trial Court has taken the same into consideration in fixing the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife and the daughter. 8. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of amount. The petitioner, while being examined as R.W.1, admits of his monthly salary as Rs.30,000/-. The trail Court has taken this admission while fixing the quantum of amount to the wife and daughter. For better appreciation, I may refer para 20 of the order impugned in the revision which reads as hereunder: “20. The respondent is a Senior Supervisor in Telephone Department. He himself admitted that his monthly salary is of Rs.30,000/- per month. At the time of filing of this petition his income is not known. He had not filed his salary certificate. In such circumstances it should be presumed that the pleadings made by the petitioner that he is drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- shall be taken to be true. In such circumstances wife and daughter are entitled for 1/3rd share which comes to Rs.7,000/- per month approximately.” 9. Since the quantum of amount has been fixed basing on the admission made by the petitioner-husband, while being examined as R.W.1, I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY 30th March, 2011. VJL