IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1184 OF 2009 Between: Shaik Parvez … PETITIONER And 1. Mohammad Beebi Ayasha Parveen 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor … RESPONDENTS AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1352 OF 2010 Between: Mohammad Beebi Ayasha Parveen … PETITIONER And 1. Shaik Parvez 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1184 of 2009 & 1352 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two revision petitions are filed by wife and husband respectively questioning order dated 10.06.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, in M.C.No.140 of 2008 granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife from the husband. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. The husband contends that there is divorce between the parties as per Ex.R3-Talaqnama and Ex.R13-Original Talaqnama Certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board. Irrespective of truth or validity of divorce between the parties, it is duty of the husband to maintain his wife irrespective of the alleged divorce between the parties, in case the wife remained unmarried. The wife has not married again in this case. In view of the stand taken by the husband that there is divorce, the husband did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights even though both the parties are residing separately. There is no possibility of reunion between the parties. 2. The question to be decided is only with regard to quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife. According to the husband, the wife is having immovable properties and can maintain herself. There is no dispute that all the immovable properties are not owned by the wife, but are owned by her father. There is no property worth mentioning in the name of the wife much less any income for her from any source. Therefore, this court finds that the wife has no means to maintain herself. Insofar as the husband is concerned, he filed Ex.R7-Salary certificate to the effect that he is working in a book shop drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The said salary certificate was issued by an unauthorized person namely A.Nagamani, when the said book shop is a proprietary concern belonging to one Padmavathi. According to the wife, the husband is owner of the said shop and he is running the same. No doubt, there is no evidence produced by the wife to show that the said shop is owned by the husband. At the same time, the husband as RW.1 admitted in cross-examination that he is subscribing to two chits in Shriram Chits for Rs.5,00,000/- each. It certainly proved capacity and financial status of the husband. RW.1 admits that his parents own house and that his family owns shopping complex near Alankar Theatre complex, Vijayawada, and it is worth more than rupees two crores and that they have also Corella car bearing No. AP 16 AS 0786 worth about Rs.12,00,000/- . All these factors reveal status of the parties. Having regard to the above evidence, it cannot be said that the husband is a worker in a book shop drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The lower court rightly held that the husband has got means to pay maintenance to his wife and is neglecting her. The lower court fixed maintenance amount at Rs.5,000/- per month as against her claim of Rs.10,000/- per month. The amount of Rs.5,000/- per month is not sufficient quantum having regard to status of the parties. The wife is not claiming that she should be provided with Corella car. She is after all claiming maintenance suitable to status of both the parties. The amount of Rs.5,000/- per month works out at Rs.167/- per day, which is less than income of a Class IV employee in the state and even less than salary of a full time contingent employee in the state. In the circumstances, this court finds that claim of Rs.10,000/- per month made by the wife against the husband in these circumstances, is quite appropriate and legal. 3. Crl.R.C.No.1184 of 2009: In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the husband is dismissed. Crl.R.C.No.1352 of 2010: In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the wife is allowed granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month granted by the lower court from the date of the petition. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 02, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1184 of 2009 & 1352 OF 2010 August 02, 2010