THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.281 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in M.C.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupathi. 2. The petitioner herein is respondent in the main M.C. The parties are referred as in M.C. 3. According to the case of the petitioners, the marriage was performed on 17.11.1991 and during the marital life, the 2nd petitioner was born. Subsequently, there was neglect on the part of the respondent and thereafter, a criminal complaint has been filed and the petitioners were made to leave the company of the respondent. The respondent is said to be working as Conductor and getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent contended that the 1st petitioner was accustomed to luxurious life and as the way of life of the 1st petitioner could not met by the respondent, the petitioner herself left the company of the respondent. The claim that he gets about Rs.15,000/- is not correct. On considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has granted a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month for the 1st petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 4. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for separate maintenance? 2) Whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court is excessive? 5. POINT: There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are living separately and it is also not in dispute that a criminal complaint was said to have been given for the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent. Though the respondent alleges that the 1st petitioner has voluntarily left his company, he did not take any steps for restitution of the conjugal rights and he also did not give any notice about the conduct of his wife. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is quite clear that the petitioners were living separately, probably due to the conduct of the respondent. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners have got any source of income and they can maintain themselves. Evidently, the respondent is working as a Conductor and the minimum salary can be up to Rs.10,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance granted to the wife at Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable keeping in mind the present cost of living and the salary of the respondent. There are absolutely no merits. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23-11-2011 INL