IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERAAD Friday, the 17th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar CRL.R.C.No. 1277 of 2011 Between: K. Krishna …Petitioner and K. Shobha and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1277 of 2011 Judgment The petitioner herein is the husband. The first respondent is the wife and second and third respondents are admittedly their children. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed maintenance case – M.C.No. 73 of 2009 under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. 2. The Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad (trial court) after giving an opportunity to both sides by its order dated:10-2-2011, partly allowed that petition and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000-00 to the wife and Rs.2,000-00 each to both the children. Questioning that order the husband has come up with this revision. 3. As already mentioned supra, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. The trial court considered the means of the husband having regard to the fact that he is a railway employee and then fixed the maintenance amounts which are mentioned supra. The other findings recorded by the trial court regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to maintenance are also based on evidence and cannot be interfered with in this revision. 4. However, while parting with the matter it may be noted that the relief granted under section 125 Cr.P.C. is a temporary relief and it is subject to the orders passed by the Civil Court and it is also capable of being altered under section 127 Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s counsel says that both – respondent Nos.2 and 3 who were aged 17 and 15 years on the date of maintenance case have become majors and are gainfully employed and they do not require any maintenance from the petitioner. He also took similar plea stating that all the three respondents are also getting house rent of Rs.4,000-00 per month. In the circumstances, the petitioner is always at liberty to file an application for alteration of the above maintenance amounts in respect of respondents 2 and 3 on his above pleas. 5. With this observation the revision case is dismissed. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 17, 2011. *BVS