THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.500 of 2010 DATED: 05-10-2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner questioning the order, dated 18-12-2009, in M.C.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, whereby the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the 1st respondent herein and Rs.750/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein married the 1st respondent herein on 24-05-1996 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 1st respondent gave Ac.2.25 cents to her as ‘pasupukumkuma’ besides cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, they gave Rs.25,000/- to purchase a scooter for the petitioner. However, petitioner and his parents have taken the cash and got sold Ac.2.25 cents and purchased Ac.1.00 in the names of the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein and Ac.0.36 cents was registered in the name of the 1st respondent herein and after 1½ years, petitioner and his parents insisted the 1st respondent to sell her Ac.0.36 cents of site and on 29-04-2007, they necked out the respondents 1 to 3 herein from their house by taking away the gold ornaments and threatened that the petitioner herein would be married again. Therefore, 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.46 of 2008 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and the petitioner herein filed O.P.No.454 of 2007 and obtained ex parte divorce. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed M.C.No.20 of 2008 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, and the learned Judge allowed the same, as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband tried to impress upon this Court stating that the petitioner never admitted that he is doing real estate business and he also did not admit that he is running a Government Employees’ Mess at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, but it is wrongly drafted as such. However, it is not as though the said fact is mentioned for the first time in the order. As and when the evidence is taken, depositions will be furnished to the clients and if really there is a mistake in the deposition, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he should have brought it to the notice of the Court then itself, however it cannot be said that the deposition is signed blindly without looking into the same. Hence, I am unable to accept the said submission that the said drafting is by mistake. Having gone through the record, it is clear that the 1st respondent is none other than the wife of the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 were born out of the said wedlock between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and it is also borne on record that the 1st respondent is living with her parents. When once it is admitted that the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the wife and children of the petitioner, in my considered view, petitioner has a bounden duty to maintain them. Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision, however taking the fact that the wife also has an extent of Ac.2.25 cents, which was given at the time of her marriage towards ‘pasupukumkuma’, the said amount of maintenance of Rs.1500/- awarded to the 1st respondent herein is reduced to Rs.1000/-( rupees one thousand only). In total, the entire amount of maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3 herein is fixed at Rs.2500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred only). 5. Except the said modification, in all other aspects Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 05th October, 2010. Tsy