IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1415 of 2010 Between: Motaparthy Dharmanarayana Babu ... PETITIONER a n d Motaparthy Lakshmi and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent. The Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada by order dated 25-06-2010 in M.C.No.41 of 2006 granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the minor daughter. Grant of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the wife is glaringly excessive, in the sense that it is more than her claim of Rs.5,000/- p.m. for herself. 2. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute that both the parties are living separately. The petitioner filed O.P.No.393 of 2006 in the lower Court for divorce. The first respondent filed O.P.No.170 of 2006 in the lower Court for restitution of conjugal rights. The lower Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim for divorce, and allowed the first respondent’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights. In spite of it, there is no re-union between the parties. The respondents 1 and 2 contend that they have no means to maintain themselves. It is their contention that the petitioner is neglecting to maintain them having sufficient means. In the circumstances, this Court agrees with the lower Court that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Main dispute herein is with regard to the quantum of maintenance. In so far as the minor second respondent is concerned, the lower Court granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. which works out at Rs.67/- per day. It is a mere pittance in these days. In so far as the first respondent is concerned, she cannot be granted more amount of maintenance than what was claimed by her in the lower Court. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is working as Lecturer in engineering college. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is working on regular basis and is getting income of Rs.50,000/- p.m. as salary. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that he is working as part-time Lecturer and that whenever he takes class he is paid Rs.200/- or Rs.250/- per class. Income of the petitioner is within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. It is for him to discharge the burden to show as to how much salary he is getting as Lecturer. The petitioner did not file any documentary proof and did not lead any evidence from the management of the college to show his income as Lecturer. Having regard to the status of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that claim of the first respondent for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. is appropriate and reasonable. 5. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed modifying quantum of maintenance awarded to the first respondent from Rs.6,000/- p.m. to Rs.5,000/- p.m.; and the criminal revision petition is partly dismissed in so far as maintenance granted to the second respondent/minor daughter is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 02, 2010. PN HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. No.1415 of 2010 September 02, 2010