HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1836 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 26.8.2010 in M.C.No.42 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein and Rs.1,500/- to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is the husband. The respondents viz., wife and child being unable to maintain themselves approached the Family Court and filed the application claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month each. During the course of trial, the 1st respondent-wife was examined as P.W.1 and the petitioner-husband was examined as R.W.1. The 1st respondent-wife also filed marriage photo, which was marked as Ex.P-1. Having analyzed the said evidence and taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner- husband, the Court below awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m., to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs.1,500/- to the 2nd respondent-child. As stated supra, the same is challenged. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-husband is getting net salary of Rs.5,929/- and out of which, if an amount of Rs.3,500/- is paid towards maintenance to the respondents, he cannot survive. It is true that as per the salary certificate filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is getting net salary of Rs.5,929/-. In a case of this nature, it is not the net salary, which has to be taken into consideration, but the gross salary. From a perusal of the said salary certificate dated 15.6.2010, the total salary being drawn by the petitioner is Rs.13,845/-, out of which, he is paying Rs.2,000/- towards GPF and Rs.5,536/- towards LIC and there are some more deductions. The said GPF and LIC are for the benefit of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the total salary of the petitioner after deductions is only Rs.5,929/. Further, the respondents are none other than the wife and child of the petitioner herein and therefore, he has responsibility to maintain them properly. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the said amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- as awarded by the Court below is perfectly justified. However, as the petitioner approached this Court and filed this revision by incurring so much of expenditure, the said amount of Rs.3,500/- is reduced by Rs.500/- and accordingly, the petitioner-husband is hereby directed to pay the entire arrears at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m., towards maintenance to the respondents and continue to pay at the same rate every month on or before 10th of every succeeding month. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 7.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1836 OF 2010 7.2.2011