THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1005 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed assailing the judgment dated 03.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2000 in setting aside the order dated 25.07.2000 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class in M.C.No.28 of 1999. The first respondent herein, who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, filed M.C.No.28/1999 under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, held that the first respondent/wife left the company of the husband on her own volition and, as such, she is not entitled to maintenance and accordingly dismissed the maintenance case by order dated 25.07.2000. Questioning the said order, the first respondent/wife filed the above said Crl.R.P. The learned Sessions Judge, after reconsidering the entire material available on record, held that the first respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month from the date of petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and accordingly allowed the petition. Questioning the same, the petitioner/husband filed this revision case. The brief facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.05.1997 at Sadasivpet. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,000/- and other articles were given. Initially though the petitioner maintained the first respondent properly, thereafter he started ill treating her demanding to bring additional dowry. Ultimately, the first respondent was driven out of the house on 16.06.1999. Hence, the first respondent filed the maintenance case. Heard. This Court, while admitting the revision, on 18.02.2003 directed the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.300/- per month to the first respondent with effect from March, 2003. There is no dispute with regard to marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. In the normal course, it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. Though the trial Court held that the first respondent/wife left the company of the petitioner/husband on her own volition, the learned Sessions Judge, after reanalyzing the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that it is only because of threat, the first respondent/wife left the company of the petitioner, but the said desertion was not on her own volition and accordingly awarded Rs.500/- per month to the first respondent. The amount of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month awarded by the court below to the first respondent-wife is meager. In these hard days, it is very difficult for the first respondent to maintain himself with the said amount. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 22.07.2010 va