THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 7 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 The respondents herein who are the wife and child of the petitioner filed M.C.No.160 of 2009 and the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad after examining P.Ws.1 and 2 for the respondents and R.Ws.1 to 3 for the petitioner awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents from the date of the petition i.e. 14.12.1999. The said order dated 31.08.2001 is questioned in this revision. 2 Brief facts are that the marriage of the first respondent was celebrated with the petitioner on 22.12.1997 and out of their wedlock the second petitioner was born. It is stated that some time after the marriage, the petitioner started harassing the first respondent to bring more dowry. On 20.06.1999 the petitioner beat her mercilessly and snatched her gold ornaments and sent her away and he further threatened her that if she comes to him again she would be burnt alive and she was not allowed to enter the house and that the petitioner was trying to marry second time. The respondents further stated that though the petitioner was having sufficient means he neglected to maintain them and hence they sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 3 The petitioner filed counter opposing the averments of the petition by stating that the first respondent was having illicit contacts with some other persons. He further contended that the second respondent is not born to him and that the first respondent is working as nurse in a private nursing home and as she has means to maintain herself he is not entitled to pay maintenance. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having considered the said submissions and also perusing the order impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the court below is justified in awarding the said maintenance. In my considered view, the said amount of Rs.500/- to each of the respondents in these hard days is not at all sufficient. Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 08.07.2010