THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1401 OF 2008 5TH OCTOBER, 2009 BETWEEN: MOHD.SABER .. PETITIONER AND UMME HAANI AND OTHS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1401 OF 2008 O R D E R: 1. This revision is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 2.9.2008 passed in M.C.No.243 of 2007 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the learned Additional Judge of the Family Court granted maintenance to Umme Haani-1st respondent herein @ Rs.3,000/- per month payable by 10th of every month from the date of the petition i.e. 24.9.2007. 3. The 1st respondent herein is daughter of the petitioner. She is represented by her mother-Saba Yasmeen. She filed M.C.No.243 of 2007 under section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein, who is no other than her father. The petitioner herein filed counter resisting the application. On behalf of 1st respondent herein, her mother was examined as P.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.P.1 and P.2. On behalf of the petitioner herein, he got himself examined as RW.1 and exhibited his salary certificate as Ex.R1. The learned Judge of Additional Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the daughter is entitled for maintenance and accordingly allowed the maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- from the date of petition i.e. 24.9.2007 by an order dated 2.9.2008. The said order is assailed in this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.9.2008. In response to the notice, 1st respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has two children through his second wife and they are his dependents apart from his ailing mother. A further submission has been made that the quantum of amount fixed by the trial Court is on high side and the same is liable to be reduced considerably. He would also contend that the petitioner gets net pay of Rs.7,615/- and if the net pay of the salary is taken into consideration the quantum of amount fixed by the trial Court is on high side. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-daughter supported the order impugned in this revision. 8. The issue involved in this revision is – whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the daughter of the petitioner is reasonable? 9. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute that the petitioner herein who has been examined as R.W.1 is an employee and Ex.R1 is his salary certificate. The learned Judge of Family Court has considered Ex.R1 salary certificate and arrived at a finding that the net salary of the petitioner can be taken at Rs.11,000/- per month. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of para 10 of the order impugned in this revision, which reads as under: “ Therefore, considering the said circumstance and taking into consideration the means of the respondent and his earning capacity and also taking into consideration the basic needs and necessities of the minor petitioner herein in the present days cost of living and in view of hike in prices of the essential commodities, I am of the considered view that awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the minor petitioner herein would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. The minor petitioner who is the daughter of the respondent is entitled to maintenance till her marriage is performed as per the decision reported in NOOR SABA KATOON V. MD.QUASIM[1].” 10. The petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. His dependents are his three children including 1st respondent herein, in which case the quantum of amount fixed by learned Judge of the Family Court cannot be stated on high side. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in this revision. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. 5th October, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1401 OF 2008 5TH OCTOBER, 2009 [1] AIR 1997 SC 380