THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2283 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein is the husband. Respondents 1 and 2 are his wife and daughter and there is no dispute about this relationship. 2 The petitioner filed this revision questioning the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge For The Trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-Cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the daughter in a maintenance case filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife and daughter. 3 Both the counsel argued the matter at length about the merits relating to the entitlement of the wife and daughter to separate residence and maintenance. It is, however, not necessary to go into the same as the trial court after considering the evidence reached a conclusion that the husband has neglected both his wife and daughter. So far as this conclusion of the trial court is concerned, there is no reason to disturb it as it is passed on evidence. 4 Then coming to the quantum of maintenance, the trial court fixed the income of the husband at Rs.15,000/- per month and in that view of the matter it proceeded to grant Rs.7,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the daughter per month. 5 The learned counsel for the husband points out that the wife again filed a case i.e. DVC No.187 of 2010 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act) and in that case the learned Magistrate granted an interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- pm to the daughter and he further says that in this view of the matter the maintenance granted to the daughter in Maintenance Case can be revoked. He also argued about the means of the husband and pointed out that it is less than Rs.15,000/- and the amount granted to the wife is excessive and beyond his means. On the other hand, the wife’s counsel pointed out that the matter is of the year 2009 and the husband is now getting more than Rs.75,000/- from his job of medical representative and therefore the amounts fixed by the trial court are correct. 6 It may be noted that the trial court itself fixed the income of the husband at Rs.15,000/- and having regard to this I am of the opinion that fixing maintenance amount to the wife at Rs.7,000/- per month is excessive. 7 In the circumstances, having regard to the income of the husband and his other obligations, which were pointed out, I am of the opinion that a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the wife would be sufficient. Regarding the daughter, the petitioner’s counsel contended that she is already getting Rs.1,500/- per month in the DVC case and therefore the order of the trial court to this extent can be set aside. There is no force in this contention. It may be noted that Section 36 of the Act says that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Act. In view of this it follows that the child can be granted maintenance under that Act also. Even otherwise it may be noted that both this amount of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the trial court and the sum of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the JFCM Court in DVC case to the daughter would together work out only to Rs.3,000/- and that would be sufficient to provide for education and maintenance to the daughter. 8 Accordingly this Revision Case is partly allowed as indicated above. The amounts to be paid and payable by the husband shall be paid as per the dates fixed by the trial court, and the amounts already paid by him, if any, shall be adjusted against the amounts payable under this order. ------------------------ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J. 18.07.2011 Kvsn