HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1033 OF 2010 DATE: 16.06.2010 Between: Rangineni Padmavathi …….Petitioner And: Rangineni Panduranga Rao and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1033 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed M.C.No.13 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court, Eluru under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the 1st respondent who is her husband. After considering entire material on record, the lower court granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to her from the 1st respondent. Not satisfied with quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower court, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this revision petition. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has got landed property and is getting income of Rs.1,00,000/- per year from his lands and the 1st respondent is also having Kirana business and is getting profit of Rs.15,000/- per month from that business. On the other hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner is B.Ed., graduate. She is residing with her father in their ancestral house. The 1st respondent denied he having any landed property. Inspite of it, no records are filed by the petitioner to show that the 1st respondent is having landed property. No copies of revenue records like No.10(1) Account, No.2/3 Adangal is filed to show ownership or possession of any landed property by the 1st respondent. In so far as Kirana business of the 1st respondent is concerned, it is located in Pydurupadu, Rayanpadu Taluk of Krishna District at his own residence. The 1st respondent does not dispute he having Kirana business at his residence. According to the 1st respondent, he obtained loan from P.M.R.Y. scheme to the extent of Rs.90,000/- and established Kirana shop. Unless the 1st respondent belongs to lower middle class, the question of granting P.M.R.Y. loan to him might not have arisen. According to the 1st respondent, he is suffering loss in his Kirana business. There is no evidence let in to show income of the 1st respondent from his Kirana business. Having considered all these aspects, the lower court rightly fixed quantum of maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month. I do not find any valid or legal grounds to question the said quantum fixed by the lower court in this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date: 16.06.2010. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1033 OF 2010 Date:16.06.2010 Gk.