HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1811 of 2010 DATE:29.12.2010 Between: Iradath Ali Khan …… Petitioner And: Shafia Begum and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1811 of 2010 ORDER: The revision petitioner is admittedly husband of the 1st respondent who filed D.V.C. No.90 of 2010 in the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad against him. Though she prayed for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and for the minor son respectively, the Magistrate granted total interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. As against the said order, the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2010 before the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge reduced the interim maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner filed this revision petition. 2) According to the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent is not entitled for any maintenance as there is no evidence of the revision petitioner having any source of income and also as the 1st respondent was receiving 40% of the petitioner’s share out of the beneficial amounts disbursed by the Nizam Trust. It is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that previously the revision petitioner was paying maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for the last 10 years and apart from the said maintenance amount, the 1st respondent was receiving 40% of the share of the petitioner from Nizam Trust and that recently the revision petitioner gave letters to the Trust when the trust stopped making any payments to the 1st respondent and that the revision petitioner also stopped paying maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month which was being done previously. There is no dispute about the revision petitioner paying amounts previously and about the 1st respondent receiving amounts from Nizam Trust previously. As the matter now stands, all those amounts are stopped. Under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the aggrieved person as well as her children are entitled for maintenance in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C or any other law for the time being in force. Thus, the aggrieved person/wife and children are entitled to claim maintenance over and above the amounts to which they were already receiving in any form. In the case on hand, due to action or inaction of the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent was deprived of the amounts which she was receiving from the revision petitioner as well as from the Nizam Trust. It cannot be said that the revision petitioner has no capacity to pay maintenance amount. The revision petitioner is not a sickly person. He is an able bodied male individual and he has to earn and maintain his wife and children. He cannot evade maintenance on flimsy ground of lack of proof of his income. When the revision petitioner was paying Rs.4,000/- per month previously, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner has no capacity to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month. The orders passed by the lower Courts are proper and do not suffer from any infirmity. 3) In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:29.12.2010 ksh