THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1414 of 2005 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: M. Krishna Murthy … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1414 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband. He was directed to pay maintenance at ` 2,500/- per month in favour of the wife, who is the second respondent herein with effect from 16.09.2004. The wife laid O.P.No.83 of 2004 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) before the Family Court, Kurnool, seeking maintenance at ` 3,000/-. After recording the evidence of wife as PW.1 and the evidence of the husband as RW.1 and another person on behalf of the husband as RW.2, the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool considered it appropriate to grant maintenance at ` 2,500/- as payable with effect from the date of petition i.e., from 16.09.2004. This is the order that is questioned before me. 2. The husband was working as a Police Constable in APSP II battalion, Kurnool at the time of the lis. He was said to be drawing a salary of ` 5,457/-. It is not clear whether it is the basic salary, net salary or the gross salary. From a reading of the evidence, the amount of ` 5,457/- appears to be gross income of the husband. 3. The dispute arose between the wife and husband leading to the filing of the Maintenance Case. The basic contention of the husband in this petition is that he is not capable of maintenance at ` 2,500/- per month. 4. Sri S. Purshotam Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the husband seeks for reduction of maintenance to ` 1,000/- or ` 1,500/- per month. 5. Sri T. Kumar Babu, learned counsel for the wife, on the other hand, contended that the husband has been drawing a basic salary of ` 10,600/- as on today, that he has been working as a Police Constable in Mahaboobnagar District and that the maintenance at ` 2,500/- per month is a very small amount for the husband. There is an intervening factor, which I shall refer to later. 6. So far as the main claim between the rival parties is concerned, indeed the gross salary of the husband at the time of the filing of the case was ` 5,457/- from which deductions are to be made. It is also a fact that the present salary of the husband is about ` 17,000/- to ` 18,000/- per month as his basic salary would appear to be more than ` 10,600/- per month. The amount of maintenance at ` 2,500/- from 16.09.2004 might be more as on the date from which the maintenance was payable, but is far less compared to the present salary of the husband. A balance between the heavy commitment upon the husband at one time paying nearly half of his salary and the present commitment is struck when maintenance from ` 2,500/- is continued presently. I, therefore, am not inclined to reduce the amount of maintenance from ` 2,500/- per month, as granted by the trial Court in the present background. 7. The intervening factor of the present case is that when the husband laid the present revision, this Court suspended the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, granting maintenance at ` 2,500/- per month on 25.08.2005 subject to payment of maintenance at ` 1,500/- per month. It would appear that the husband has been paying maintenance accordingly. I consider that the balance would be maintained if the husband is permitted to pay maintenance at ` 1,500/- per month only from the date of commencement of the interim order i.e., from 25.08.2005 till today and shall pay maintenance at ` 2,500/- from 16.09.2004 till the date of interim order on 25.08.2005 and from today onwards. 8. The Criminal Revision Case is ordered accordingly. The petitioner-husband shall pay maintenance at Rs.2,500/- per month, as awarded by the trial Court from 06.09.2004 till 25.08.2005 and from today onwards. He shall pay maintenance at Rs.1,500/- per month. From 23.08.2005 on which the interim order was passed in his favour till today. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 22.09.2011 Isn