HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1419 of 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.158 of 2002 dated 17.07.2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the 2nd respondent herein and the revision petitioner was solemnized on 11.03.1988 and out of the wedlock three sons were born to them. Thereafter, the revision petitioner contacted second marriage with one Ghousia Begum and left the 2nd respondent-wife and her children to the mercy of her parents. The revision petitioner is earning Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- per month by doing business and also Rs.15,000/- per month towards rents from his lorry bearing No.ATK 7623. Since the parents of the 2nd respondent-wife are not in a position to maintain the respondents 2 to 5 herein, they filed M.C.No.158 of 2002 before the Court below against the revision petitioner seeking maintenance and accordingly they were granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each from the revision petitioner from the date of the petition i.e., 06.09.2002. Questioning the said order, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. This Court, on 17.09.2003, while admitting this revision, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in M.C.No.158 of 2002 on condition of the revision petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears accrued up to August, 2003, within a period of four weeks from that date and continue to deposit 50% of the future maintenance awarded on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 herein. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, held that the revision petitioner-husband herein has deserted and neglected the respondents 2 to 5 herein even though he has got sufficient means to maintain them and accordingly granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 5 herein taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the material available on record. The Court below was justified in awarding the said amount. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in allowing the Maintenance Case filed by respondents 2 to 5 herein. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29.07.2010 Gsn.