THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1088 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 25.11.2003 in M.C.No.47 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, wherein an amount of Rs.2,500/- was awarded to the respondent-wife towards maintenance. The 1st respondent-wife filed the above M.C. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the petitioner herein. She stated that her marriage with the petitioner herein was performed on 15.10.2001 as per their rites and her parents presented Rs.25,000/- and other articles and by that time, the petitioner herein was a divorcee. After marriage, they lived happily for two days and thereafter, the petitioner herein started ill-treating her and abusing her in filthy language and neglected to maintain her. She further stated that on coming to know that the petitioner herein had colluded with his first wife, she filed a criminal case. On that, the elders intervened and compromised the matter and the petitioner herein agreed to pay Rs.1500/- p.m., to the respondent-wife and executed a deed to that effect. But the petitioner neglected the respondent and failed to pay the maintenance as agreed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-husband filed the present revision. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he has no instructions. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the records. Apparently, the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was performed on 15.10.2001 and after two days, ill- feelings started between them. As per Ex.R1-pay slip of September, 2003, marked on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner is getting gross salary of Rs.6,721/-. After taking the said fact into consideration, the Court below awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m. Now, after a lapse of eight years, this Court is of the view that the salary of the petitioner must have been enhanced. As the respondent was not served and the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions, this Court is of the view that maintenance awarded by the Court below cannot be said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1088 of 2004 24.3.2011