THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1189 of 2009 Date: 29.10.2009 Between: K. Vinod Kumar .. Petitioner And Mrs. Gayatri Vindo and another. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1189 of 2009 Judgment: This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 809 of 2008 in M.C. No.141 of 2005 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC- cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The respondents herein filed M.C. No.141 of 2005 claiming maintenance. The first respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner herein and the second respondent is their minor son aged about 6 years. On behalf of the respondents the first respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein he himself was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. The lower Court, by its order dated 11.09.2006, directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1000/- to the first respondent herein and Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent herein towards their monthly maintenance from the date of the order. Subsequently, the respondents herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No.809 of 2008, under Section 127 Cr.P.C, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. The lower Court, by its order dated 10th June, 2009, enhanced the maintenance amount and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents herein from 01.04.2009 onwards. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. The notices sent to the address of the respondents were returned unserved with an endorsement that they refused to receive the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court, without looking into the earlier order dated 11.09.2006 passed in M.C. No.141 of 2005 and without verifying the amounts already ordered to be paid to the respondents, under a mistaken impression that the respondents were seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- each, passed the impugned orders. It is also his submission that the petitioner is earning Rs.10,000/- per month only and when the petitioner is earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the order of the lower Court in ordering him to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents 1 and 2 is not justified. It is also his submission that the petitioner herein has to look after his old aged mother. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As seen from the contents of the order dated 11.09.2006 in M.C. No.141 of 2005, it is clear that the petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent towards their monthly maintenance from the date of that order. As seen from the impugned order the lower Court seems to be under a mistaken impression that the respondents were awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- each. The observations of the lower Court in the impugned order are that a meager amount of Rs.500/- is not at all sufficient now and the cost of living has gone up during the last 3 to 4 yeas. In view of the glaring mistake as discussed above, the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.06.2009 in Crl.M.P. No. 809of 2008 in M.C. No.141 of 2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower Court with a direction to the lower Court to issue notices to both the parties, give them an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their rival contentions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the petitioner is directed to comply with the earlier order dated 11.09.2006 made in M.C. No.141 of 2005. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 29.10.2009 Nsr