IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FIRDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1280 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Shaik Ummar Alisha …. Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1280 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by father against order dated 03-02-2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Guntur in M.C. No.246 of 2008 granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the second respondent / minor daughter commencing from date of the order. 2. There is no dispute between the parties about their inter se relationship. Admittedly, the minor daughter is living with her maternal grand mother. It is stated that previously the minor daughter was with the petitioner, who was getting her educated and that subsequent to death of the petitioner’s wife, the second respondent was taken away by the maternal grand parents and obtained transfer certificate of the second respondent from the School without consent of the petitioner. It is also contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in some mediation, the petitioner paid Rs.45,000/- towards past maintenance of the second respondent for two years. Admittedly, there is no documentary proof for such payment. In any event, the lower Court did not grant maintenance for the past period, but granted maintenance only from the date of the impugned order. 3. After receiving notice from the lower Court, the petitioner remained ex parte in the lower Court. Even after the impugned order, the petitioner did not approach the lower Court for setting aside the ex parte order. He woke up when warrant was issued against him by the lower Court for non payment of maintenance amount. Since the petitioner does not disown his liability to maintain the minor daughter, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served to set aside the ex parte order passed by the lower Court. With regard to quantum of maintenance, the lower Court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month to the second respondent, which works out at Rs.100/- per day. The second respondent is aged about 15 years by the time of filing of the petition in the lower Court. She is being educated. It is stated that the petitioner is a Civil Engineer. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the petitioner is not a qualified Civil Engineer. In any event, even according to petitioner’s contention, the petitioner is alleged to have paid Rs.45,000/- towards maintenance for two years previously without obtaining any document. In the circumstances, this Court does not find the quantum awarded by the lower Court is inappropriate or excessive. There are no grounds to set aside the order passed by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. However, two months time from today is granted to the petitioner for deposit of entire arrears of maintenance as per the award of the lower Court, apart from paying the current maintenance amount. No further extension of time will be granted. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 16, 2010 KTL