THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1056 of 2009 Date: 01.02.2010 Between: C. Vinod. .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and 3 others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1056 of 2009 Order: There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein on 22.09.2009 and on 28.01.2010. Hence, on 28.01.2010, while directing the matter to be listed on 29.01.2010, this Court observed that even if there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner i.e., the respondent in Crl.M.P. No. 233 of 2008 in M.C. No. 364 of 2008 on that day, arguments of the other side would be heard and the orders would be passed. On 29.01.2010 also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, arguments of the other side were heard and the matter is being disposed of on the face of the record available. The petitioner herein filed this revision challenging the order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Crl.MP No.233 of 2008 in M.C. No. 364 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience. The first petitioner is the wife, second petitioner is the minor daughter aged about 5 years and the third petitioner is the minor son, aged about 2 ½ years, of the respondent. They filed M.C. No.364 of 2008 claiming maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.3000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3. The specific case of the first petitioner is that her marriage was solemnized on 07.04.2002 at Chandana Gardens, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, and at the time of marriage, the respondent was given an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- net cash, gold and silver ornaments and other household articles on his demand and on the demand of his parents. During their wedlock, they have been blessed with a daughter i.e., the second petitioner in 2003. Thereafter, the respondent and his parents started demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 19.07.2004 the respondent beat the first petitioner and sent her and her children out from his house and the first petitioner was admitted in Harmain Hospital on the same day and discharged on the next day i.e. on 20.07.2004. Then the first petitioner filed a complaint before the Chatrinaka Police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 173 of 2004 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the matter was subsequently compromised and the petitioners 1 and 2 and the respondent started living together at Musheerabad for three years. Thereafter, the respondent continued to harass the first petitioner demanding to bring an amount of Rs.60,000/- on the ground that he had spent that amount to meet the expenditure to obtain bail in Crime No.173 of 2004. Subsequently, the first petitioner has been blessed with a son on 12.12.2005. However, the harassment continued and on 29.03.2007 again the first petitioner along with her children were sent out from the house of the respondent on the ground that she failed to bring Rs.60,000/- from her parents. The first petitioner approached the police and filed a complaint, basing upon which the police Basheerabad registered a case in Crime No.221 of 2007 under Section 498-A IPC. It is also the case of the first petitioner that the respondent is running a licensed milk booth bearing No.552 at Mahankali Temple, Secunderabad and used to earn an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and in addition to that the respondent is doing a private job in D Link Computer Net Work, at Minerva Complex, Secunderabad and drawing salary of Rs.7000/- per month. The respondent is also running private finance business and earning an amount of Rs.5000/- per month and thus the total income of the respondent is Rs.18,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the respondent is having a house at Bansilalpet, Chacha Nehru Nagar, Secunderabad and also a plot at Tukaramgate, Secunderabad. It is also alleged that the petitioners have no source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations. The respondent, however, admitted his relationship with the petitioners. His specific case is that he never harassed the first petitioner and that after first delivery the first petitioner did not return to his house and therefore three panchayats were held and thereafter they started living together. It is also his case that the father of the first petitioner created nuisance at his house and subsequently the first petitioner filed a false criminal case against him in Crime No.173 of 2004 under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, the matter was compromised and again the first petitioner went to her parents house and she did not return. It is also his case that subsequently they joined together, but however, against the first petitioner quarreled with him and went to her parents house and again filed another criminal case. It is also his case that he is earning only Rs.2000/- per month from milk business and that he is working as an attender and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Thus, his total income is only Rs.4500/- per month and that he has to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and therefore he cannot pay any amount towards maintenance to the petitioners. It is also his case that the first petitioner is earning an amount of Rs.5000/- per month by conducting tuitions. The learned Judge, Family Court, having considered the rival contentions, passed the impugned orders directing the respondent to pay Rs.2000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.1000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3. Against the said orders, the present revision case is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent ill-treated the first petitioner and neglected the petitioners and refused to pay maintenance and that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. It is further submitted that though this Court passed interim orders directing the respondent to pay 50% of the maintenance amount as ordered by the lower Court, but the respondent has paid only Rs.12,000/- and subsequently he did not pay the remaining amount. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the interim maintenance granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, is just and reasonable and whether the same is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the learned Judge, Family Court, has passed only interim orders. The parties have not let in any evidence. The truth or otherwise of the rival contentions can be determined only after full fledged trial. There is nothing on record to show the income of the first petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioners have given the particulars of the income of the respondent such as particulars of milk booth bearing No.552 situated at Mahankali Temple, Secunderabad and the name of the company in which the respondent has been working etc. The petitioners have also specifically mentioned that the respondent is having a own house at Bansilalpet, Chacha Nehru Nagar, Secunderabad, and a plot at Tukaramgate, Secunderabad. The respondent, in his counter, did not deny the averments of the petitioner that he is having own house at Bansilalpet, Chacha Nehru Nagar, Secunderabad, and a plot at Tukaramgate, Secunderabad. He admitted that he is doing milk business, but he is claiming that he is earning only Rs.2000/- per month. He has also admitted that he is working as office attender, but he claimed that he is earning only Rs.2500/- per month. Having regard to the nature of business being done by the respondent and the other contentions, it appears that the respondent has not come up with true facts. The amount of maintenance should be just and reasonable. The petitioners should be in a position to meet their basic needs. The first petitioner is aged about 29 years, the second petitioner is aged about 5 years and the third petitioner is aged about 2 ½ years as on the date of filing of the maintenance case. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.1000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3, which is payable from 09.04.2009. Subject to the above mentioned modification, the impugned order is confirmed in other respects. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 01.02.2010 Nsr