THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1827 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.98 of 2010 in M.C.No.34 of 2008 on 27.09.2010 is questioned in this revision. 2 The respondent claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner filed the said maintenance case under section 125 of Cr.P.C. stating that she has no means to maintain herself and as such she is entitled for maintenance. The court below, as stated supra, awarded the interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. 3 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to rebut the said allegations made by the respondent in the said application filed for interim maintenance. It is his further submission that there is no legal marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. 4 However, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Gangirami Reddy submitted that the respondent filed so many documents to establish that there is a valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent is unable to maintain herself and taking all these facts into consideration the trial court awarded the said maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and hence this revision need not be entertained. 5 Even from the docket order of the trial court produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is clear that notice to the petitioner was ordered on 17.09.2010. The docket order dated 17.09.2010 reads as “Notice and counter” and the matter was adjourned to 22.09.2010. On 22.09.2010 also as no counter is filed, the matter was adjourned to 23.09.2010. On 23.09.2010 as the counsel for the petitioner requested time for filing counter, the matter was adjourned to the next date for filing of counter duly signed by the petitioner. However, the court below specifically directed the petitioner to appear on the next date of hearing i.e. on 24.09.2010 and if he fails to appear the court will take serious note of it. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 24.09.2010, no counter was filed and again a request was made for filing counter. However, the petitioner again was absent on 24.09.2010. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations made by the respondent by filing a detailed counter. 6 Further, the court below had not awarded the said interim maintenance in a routine and mechanical way. The order dated 24.09.2010 clearly shows that the wife i.e. respondent herein filed some documents, photographs, marriage certificate as well as Xerox copy of an agreement in support of her claim for interim maintenance. After considering all those documents only, the trial court awarded the said interim maintenance. Hence, this court is of the view that the court below is justified in awarding the said interim maintenance with effect from October 2010. Hence, I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the said interim maintenance is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/- p.m and the said amount of Rs.8,000/- shall be paid from the month of October 2010. If there are any arrears, the same shall be calculated at the same rate and be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the court below shall not be influenced by any of the observations, if any, made in this order in deciding the main M.C.No.34 of 2008. -------------- 31.01.2011 Kvsn