IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.624 OF 2010 Between: T. Ranga Swamy … PETITIONER And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.624 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The husband seeks to file this revision petition questioning judgment, dated 05.03.2010, passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.Nos.386 of 2009 and 46 of 2010, by which the said appellate Court confirmed order, dated 28.10.2009, passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in D.V.C.No.14 of 2007, granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the second respondent/wife. 2. Few months after marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent, dispute arouse between the parties. Before the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, the petitioner returned cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, gold ornaments, vehicle and other house hold articles which were taken as dowry, to the second respondent and expressed before that authority that he was not interested to live with the second respondent and was interested to get the marriage dissolved. According to the second respondent, the petitioner, his mother - RW.2 and unmarried sisters harassed her to get a flat registered in the name of the petitioner or to pay its value of Rs.9,00,000/-. The second respondent as PW.1 spoke to the said fact. It constitutes domestic violence under Section 3 of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act). 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that separation between the parties took place even before consummation of their marriage. Consummation or no consummation is not a ground for granting reliefs under the Act to the wife. It is further contended that the petitioner is working as stenographer in a Government department and getting gross salary of about Rs.13,000/- per month and net salary of Rs.8,000/- per month and odd and that he has to maintain his aged widowed mother and four unmarried sisters. 4. According to the second respondent, the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner is working in Commercial Tax Department at Hyderabad. After the latest pay revision, his salary will be much more than the said amount. Simply because he is paying amounts to State Bank of Hyderabad, HSBC Bank and Sri Ram Chits, towards loan repayment, the said facts cannot be taken into consideration in fixing quantum of maintenance. It is further contended that the second respondent is working in a private organization and was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month previously and Rs.8,000/- per month at present. The petitioner did not lead any independent evidence on that aspect. Contention of the petitioner as RW.1 was denied by the second respondent as PW.1 on this aspect. Having regard to findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, this Court does not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. 5. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 05, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.624 OF 2010 July 05, 2010