THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1858 OF 2010 1. Assailing the order dated 05.03.2010 made by the Learned Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad in M.P.No.1027 of 2009 in M.C.No.254 of 2009, whereby interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents 1 & 2 was awarded is questioned in this revision. 2. Brief facts are that the respondents 1 & 2 herein being the wife and minor son of the petitioner herein approached the court below and filed M.C.No.254 of 2009 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for both the respondents put together. In the said M.C. they also filed M.P.No.1027 of 2009 claiming interim maintenance. Taking the status of the parties and other circumstances into consideration, the court below awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this revision. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wife i.e. first respondent herein is earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- and in that context he produced the salary certificate of the first respondent for the month of January 2010. 4. It is true that the wife i.e. first respondent is an employee and she is working with Xposure Frenchise of Gobanana and the salary certificate produced by the wife herself establishes the fact that she is getting a net salary of Rs.5,000/-. But that does not mean that she is not entitled to maintenance. Except stating that the petitioner who is getting only an amount of Rs.3,000/- and is working in a bakery, the petitioner has not produced any salary certificate to establish the fact that his salary is only Rs.3,000/-. Whereas the contention of the wife i.e. first respondent herein is that the petitioner is having agricultural lands and is getting an income of more than Rs.50,000/- per month. 5. In those circumstances, this court is of the view that there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to say that he cannot pay the said amount of Rs.2,000/- towards interim maintenance. Accordingly I see no merits in this revision and hence the same is dismissed. However, the said interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents) is reduced to Rs.1,400/- (Rs.700/- to each of the respondents) per month and the said amount shall be paid very month as ordered by the court below during the pendency of the said Maintenance Case. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 26th October 2010 Kvsn