THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1593 of 2002 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the order dated 13.08.2002 in Criminal Revision Petition No.48 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.400/- per month granted to each of the petitioners herein in the order dated 12.10.2001 in M.C. No.14 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, was reduced to Rs.130/- per month. 2. The petitioners herein filed the maintenance case for grant of maintenance at Rs.500/- each, against the second respondent herein. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.400/- each per month to the petitioners. When the second respondent herein preferred revision, the revisional court reduced the quantum of maintenance to Rs.130/- per month to each of the petitioners. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Though the learned counsel for the second respondent herein is disputing about the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent herein, the concurrent findings of the courts below on this aspect would reveal that the first petitioner herein is the legally wedded wife of the second respondent herein. It is not shown that the finding of the trial Court on this aspect, as confirmed by the revisional court, is perverse or contrary to the evidence. 5. The only grievance of the revision petitioners is reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.400/- to Rs.130/- each per month. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the amount is hardly sufficient to meet their requirements and that the amount claimed by the petitioners even in the trial Court is also not sufficient for their maintenance at this point of time, due to escalation of prices in all respects. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision case. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that, the second respondent is an agricultural cooli, and through his second wife, two children were born to the second respondent and he has to maintain his second wife and her children. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision case. 7. It is not in dispute that the second respondent was working as agricultural cooli and he was earning Rs.100/- per day. In such a case, he would get income not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. So, 1/3rd thereof, can reasonably awarded towards maintenance of the petitioners, who are wife and daughters of second respondent. This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the revisional court. The trial court is the best court to note the demeanor of the parties and witnesses and also the positions of the witnesses, and basing on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record, granted maintenance at Rs.400/- per month to each of the petitioners, and the same cannot be said to be on higher side. The revisional court has not given any finding that the observation of the trial court with regard to granting of maintenance at Rs.400/- per month to each of the petitioners, is perverse or not based upon any evidence or incorrect. Unless the revisional court finds that any finding of the trial court is illegal or improper or incorrect, normally the revisional court need not interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order of the revisional court is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revisional Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 13.08.2002 in Criminal Revision Petition No.48 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, while confirming the order dated 12.10.2001 in M.C. No.14 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 6.8.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1593 of 2002 06.08.2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1593 of 2002 Date: 06.8.2009 Between: Sunkaraboina Sayamma & others …Petitioners and State of A.P. rep. by the P.P., High Court of A .P. & another …Respondents This Court made the following: