IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1552 OF 2010 Between: Parimi Chakrapani …Caveat Petitioner And Ekatmika Sarvani … Respondent This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1552 OF 2010 ORDER: The father filed this revision petition questioning award of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the first respondent minor child by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, in M.C.No.233 of 2008 by order, dated 29.04.2010. There is no dispute about paternity. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that mother of the first respondent is working in the High Court at Hyderabad and is an earning member and that the first respondent/child is with the mother who is an earning member and that therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for maintenance. He placed reliance on PADMAJA SHARMA VS. RATAN LAL SHARMA[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that when the wife is an earning member, the maintenance cannot be granted. In that decision, the Supreme Court was considering rights of the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The considerations under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are totally different from the considerations and entitlement of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to a case of the present nature which was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a minor child can make a claim for maintenance against father only and not against mother. 3. The petitioner’s counsel disputes quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court. The revision petitioner is working in clerical cadre in State Bank of Hyderabad. Having regard to status of the parties and requirement of the minor boy, the amount of maintenance granted by the lower Court is appropriate. Simply because school fees of the minor is only Rs.500/- per month, it cannot alone be taken as consideration. Maintenance includes food, clothing, residence, educational expenses and other incidental expenses. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 4. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1552 OF 2010 December 29, 2010 KL [1] AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1398