THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.475 & 289 OF 2011 DATED:15.07.2011 COMMON ORDER: Both the Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the order, dated 02.12.2010, in F.C.O.P.No.25 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Adilabad, wherein the learned Judge directed the husband to pay the maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the wife. Assailing the same, husband filed Crl.R.C.No.289 of 2011 and seeking enhancement of the maintenance, wife filed Crl.R.C.No.475 of 2011. As both the revisions arise out of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the marriage between the parties took place on 30.04.2008 at Adilabad. They lived together happily for about two months after the marriage and thereafter differences cropped up between them. The wife makes allegation that her father-in-law tried to outrage her modesty. Husband on the other hand alleges that the wife is having illicit intimacy with her brother-in-law. It is stated that the wife gave complaint to the police against her in-laws alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC etc., and the said cases ended in acquittal recently on 08.07.2011. It is not disputed that there has been estrangement between the parties. During the enquiry in this case, the husband produced letters-Exs.B1 to B4, said to have been written by the wife, wherein she is stated to have made certain admissions regarding her intimacy with her brother-in-law. 4. The wife contends that the said letters were obtained from her by force. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, the said dispute regarding the alleged illicit intimacy of the wife with her brother-in-law and the truth or otherwise of the contents of Exs.B1 to B4 can be gone into in an appropriate matrimonial proceedings, but not in the present Maintenance Case inasmuch as there has been estrangement between the parties and the material on record prima facie shows that their living separately is for justifiable reasons. In view of the allegations and counter allegations made against one another, the husband is liable to provide separate maintenance to the wife as the marriage is still subsisting. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of maintenance. It is not disputed that the husband is working as a teacher. According to the wife, he is getting salary of around Rs.20,000/- per month, but she has not produced any evidence in support thereof. The husband admitted in the evidence that he was getting a salary of Rs.10,200/- per month. Admittedly, the husband has old-aged parents and also grandmother, who are depending upon him. The wife is admittedly a B.Com graduate and completed Hindi Pandit training. According to her, she is not doing any job but the husband alleges that she is also working as a teacher, but he has not produced any evidence to show that she is doing any job or getting any income. Admittedly, there are no children born to them and the wife has no other responsibilities. In the circumstances, the learned District Judge taking into consideration the means and assets of the parties and the capacity of the husband to pay the maintenance and the basic needs and requirements of the wife, awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- per month towards her maintenance. The said amount is considered to be just and reasonable. In the circumstances of the case, there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for enhancement of the same. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th July, 2011. Tsy