THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.NO.181 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed by the revision petitioner/respondent against the order dated.19- 12-2008 in M.C.No.217 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in M.C.No.217 of 2007. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming monthly maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- from the respondent/revision petitioner. According to the case of the petitioner, she was married on 01-09-2004 after her first marriage with one Thomas Bernard was dissolved. She claims to have joined the company of the respondent immediately at Rajahmundry and the marriage was consummated. It was also further pleaded that the respondent was also a divorcee. A sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was said to have been given as dowry and consequently she was ill-treated by the respondent and was forced to leave the house. She is not able to maintain herself. As against this, the claim of the respondent is that the petitioner herself left the company and she was not living in the marital home and she was able to maintain herself by doing any job and he was getting only a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and the claim for the maintenance is not legal and sustainable. After considering the material evidence on record, the lower court has granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e., 30-08-2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance and if so to what amount? POINT:- There is no dispute between the parties that both of them are living separately. It is the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that he filed O.P.No.156 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights and the said application has been allowed and consequently he is not liable to pay the maintenance amount. As matter stands, the decree in the said O.P has not been complied with and the petitioner and respondent are living separately. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent that there is a threat if the petitioner is to join the respondent as per the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent has to enforce the decree of restitution in proper court and till then he has to maintain the petitioner. There is no material to show that the petitioner has got any source of income for herself or as to whether she was working anywhere. In view of the above circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for maintenance is sustainable. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, evidently, by the date of petition he was said to be drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- and there was a revision of pay scales, but, however except the petitioner there are no other dependents on her to be maintained. Hence the increase of the salary subsequently cannot be taken into consideration. Hence from the date of petition the maintenance is fixed at Rs.5,000/- in stead of Rs.6,000/- as granted by the lower court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. The revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e.,30- 08-2007 in stead of Rs.6,000/- as granted by the lower court. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 28-11-2011 TSNR