THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2363 &498 OF 2010 DATED:27.07.2011 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Revision Case No.2363 of 2010 is filed by the husband assailing the order, dated 11.10.2010, in F.C.O.P.No.451 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the 1st respondent-wife was granted maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. Criminal Revision Case No.498 of 2010 is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance. As both the matters arise from the same impugned order and between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the matters. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2363 of 2010 is the husband of the 1st respondent, their marriage having taken place on 24.12.1997. It is stated that after some time there has been estrangement between the parties alleging that the husband neglected to provide any maintenance. The wife filed M.C.No.58 of 2006. She also filed O.P.No.451 of 2006 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband filed counter opposing the petition. Common evidence was recorded in both the matters. 4. The wife was examined as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. The husband was examined as R.W.1. No documents were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court, allowed O.P.No.451 of 2006, directing the husband to take the wife into marital fold. M.C.No.58 of 2006 is also allowed granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the wife. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband would mainly question the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. 7. According to the respondent-wife, petitioner- husband is doing contract works and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Petitioner denied the same in his counter. In the evidence, the husband as R.W.1 admitted that he is working as clerk under the contractor and getting salary of Rs.5000/- per month. In the cross-examination, he however admitted that in the year, 2004-05, he filed income tax returns, wherein he has shown Rs.30,000/- from contract works and finance business. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said income of Rs.30,000/- represents the salary of the petitioner, but not any income from the contract works. 9. If that be so, when admittedly the husband is earning Rs.5000/- per month, the income from the salary ought to be Rs.60,000/- per annum but not Rs.30,000/-. In fact, R.W.1 categorically stated that the said income of Rs.30,000/- shown in the income tax returns is from contract works and finance business. In view of the said categorical admission, the contention now put forward that it relates to salary income cannot be countenanced. It is therefore clear from the admission of R.W.1 that he is having income from different sources i.e. salary income of Rs.5000/- per month and also income from contract works and finance business. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband would submit that the income tax returns referred to in the cross- examination of R.W.1 related to the period 2004-05 and at present, the husband is not having any income from the contract works or finance business. 11. Petitioner-husband has not adduced any evidence to show that he stopped the finance business and contract works and that he is not getting any income from those sources as of now. In the absence of any such evidence, his plea that he is not getting any income from any source other than the salary, remains unsubstantiated. In view of the categorical admissions made by R.W.1 in his evidence regarding his source of income and quantum of income, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.3000/- per month awarded by the Family Court towards maintenance for the respondent-wife is excessive or unreasonable in view of the ever increasing cost of living. At the same time, there are no valid or sufficient grounds for enhancement of the maintenance as prayed for by the respondent-wife. The impugned order, which is passed taking into consideration the relevant aspects pertaining to the mutual assets and liabilities of the parties and their basic needs and requirements for a decent living commensurate with their social status, does not therefore call for any interference. 12. In the result, Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th July, 2011. Tsy