IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.R.C.NO.50 OF 2007. Date:02.02.2011 Between:- Govindu Manga Raju .. Petitioner And Govindu Vidyulatha and two others .. Respondents ORDER:- This Criminal Revision Case arises out of a common order dated 06.10.2005 passed in M.C.No.92 of 2001 and O.P.No.442 of 2001 on the file of Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Court at Vijayawada. The respondent in M.C.No.92 of 2001 has filed this Criminal Revision Case assailing the said orders inter alia on the following grounds: 2. The Court below ought to have seen that the first respondent/wife had voluntarily deserted him, that he has no means and capacity to provide separate maintenance to the respondents since he is only drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,688/- and that he has to maintain his parents. 3. The facts in brief in M.C.No.92 of 2001 are that the marriage of the first respondent with the petitioner was performed on 18-05-1991 according to Hindu rites at the house of the parents of the first respondent/wife at Ramavarappadu; that the petitioner/ husband was given all the marriage lanchanams and saree samans etc. They are blessed with two children; that the petitioner was harassing the first respondent for additional dowry, that his demand was complied with on several times. The first respondent was also subjected to mental and physical harassment, that ultimately, on 22-08-2000, she was necked out of her matrimonial home; that mediation efforts by her parents and elders proved futile; that he also used to visit her at her parents’ house and demand additional dowry and also used to assault her on that ground, that he was addicted to vices; that he was leading adulterous life with one Lakshmi and that on 28- 05-2001, the petitioner/husband along with his two sisters demanded divorce from her and threatened her with dire consequences, thereupon, she preferred criminal complaint before Mahila Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. 4. The petitioner is working as a driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. and earning Rs.7,000/- per month and that he is also earning Rs.4,000/- out of the landed property. 5. Respondents 2 and 3, being school going children, need educational expenditure besides their maintenance along with their mother, that on 28-09-2001, legal notice was given demanding monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.500/- to each of the respondents and since there was no response, the maintenance petition was filed claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- to each of the respondents from 22-08-2000 on which date she was necked out of her matrimonial home, and Rs.5,000/-per annum towards medical expenses of the first respondent and Rs.5,000/-per annum to each of the second and third respondents towards their educational expenses and costs of the petition. 6. The petitioner/husband filed counter admitting his marriage with the first respondent and the birth of the second and third respondents out of their wedlock. He denied the marriage lanchanams and other saree samans etc being given to him by the parents of the first respondent at the time of their marriage. He also denied that he harassed the first respondent to bring additional dowry and also ill treated her. He also denied that on 22-08-2001, he had necked her out of the matrimonial home, the mediation efforts from the side of the first respondent as well as his visiting the first respondent along with his sisters on 28.05.2001 and demanding divorce. He has invested Rs.35,000/- in Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of second and third respondents. He alleged that the first respondent is arrogant and adamant towards him, that she used to insult him and that she used to go to her parents’ house frequently without his knowledge. He alleged that the first respondent voluntarily deserted him; that he has no means or capacity to provide separate maintenance to the respondents as he is drawing a meager monthly salary of Rs.3,688/-; that he has no other income; that he has no landed property; that he has to support his old aged parents and that he is willing to take back the respondents and maintain them. 7. Basing on the pleadings on both sides, the Court below, after framing relevant issue as to whether the petitioners in M.C.No.92 of 2001 are entitled to receive maintenance allowance from the respondent therein, if so, to what extent and gave a finding on the said issue in favour of the respondents and allowed the said M.C. in part directing the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents towards their maintenance allowance and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per annum to the first respondent towards her medical expenses and also Rs.2,000/- per annum each to respondents 2 and 3 towards their educational expenses. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner-husband that it is only when he filed O.P.No.442 of 2001 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the first respondent-wife filed M.C.No.92 of 2001 claiming maintenance for herself and respondents 2 and 3-two minor children at the rate of Rs.500/- each per month, Rs.5000/-per annum towards her medical expenses and also Rs.5,000/-per annum each to respondents 2 and 3 towards their educational expenses. It is further contended that the first respondent had voluntarily deserted him and that he has no means and capacity to provide separate maintenance to the respondents since he is only drawing a meager salary of Rs.3,688/- per month and since he is required to maintain his old aged parents, this revision court may modify the impugned order of the trial court by reasonably reducing the quantum as awarded by the trial court. 10. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents-wife and children that the amount awarded towards maintenance of the respondents at the rate of Rs.500/- is meager and it is also not sufficient having regard to the realities of life, as of now. It is their further case that the revision petitioner being an A.P.S.R.T.C. driver and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,688/- and also having other source of income from agriculture and that he constructed a house in the village by raising loan, he must maintain his wife and children. Taking into consideration inter alia the said facts, the lower court has awarded reasonable amount of Rs.500/- each per month towards maintenance to the respondents, Rs.2,000/-per annum towards medical expenses to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per annum each towards educational expenses to respondents 2 and 3 and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 11. It is to be seen that the revision petitioner is APSRTC driver and drawing the monthly salary of Rs.3,688/- and also income from the agriculture. The trial court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, the income of the revision petitioner, has awarded Rs.500/-per month each to the respondents towards maintenance, Rs.2,000/- per annum to the first respondent towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- per annum each to respondents 2 and 3 –children towards educational expenses, which is just and reasonable. As such, this court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court. 12. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 02.02.2011 Stp THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.R.C.NO.50 OF 2007 Date: -12-2010