THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1756 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner, who is the husband of the first respondent herein, filed this Revision aggrieved by the order, dated 08.07.2004, passed in M.C.No.19 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBB Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby he was directed to pay maintenance to the third respondent herein at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent claiming to be the wife and respondents 2 and 3 to be the children of the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court below claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to each of respondents 2 and 3. The same was numbered as M.C.No.19 of 2003. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners therein, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was marked. On behalf of the respondent therein-husband, he himself got examined as R.W-1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-4 After appreciating evidence, the Court below refused to award maintenance to the wife and daughter of the petitioner herein for the reason that the wife is working as Vice Principal in a residential school and is having sufficient income, and similarly, the daughter is a major. However taking into account the fact that the third respondent is a minor and is unable to maintain himself, the Court below directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance to him at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of filing of the said M.C., till he attains majority. As stated supra, the same is challenged in this Revision. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent mother is working as a Vice Principal of a residential school and is having sufficient income and as such, she can take care of the two children and prayed to allow the Revision. May be, it is a fact that the wife is employed and is having sufficient income, from that, it cannot be said that the father has no obligation to maintain the children. So far as the relationship between the parties is concerned, there is no dispute. The petitioner herein, being a father, in my considered view, is also under obligation to maintain his son-the third respondent herein, who is a minor. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the Court below erred in awarding maintenance to the third respondent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. But, however, the said amount of maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month awarded to the third respondent by the Court below is reduced to Rs.1,250/- per month. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of maintenance to the third respondent calculated at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per month from the date of filing of the said M.C. i.e., from 22.01.2003. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 24th February 2011 DR