THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.447 OF 2011 DATED:01.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 14.10.2010, in M.C.No.282 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Judge-cum- XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim for maintenance filed by the petitioners herein was allowed in part awarding maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to each of the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents though served with notice and proof of service is filed. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein are admittedly the children of the 1st respondent. They filed the claim for maintenance in M.C.No.282 of 2009 through their mother-P.Sailaja Devi as guardian claiming Rs.5000/- per month each. According to the petitioners, 1st respondent developed illicit intimacy with a woman by name Jhansi Rani and in April, 2009 he deserted the petitioners and their mother and neglected to take care of them and did not provide any maintenance to them. Petitioners further pleaded that the respondent is earning Rs.30,000/- per month as an advocate. Respondent filed counter inter alia contending that he is earning only Rs.7000/- per month and has been sending Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioners by demand draft. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to each of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioners intended to adduce evidence in support of their plea the learned Sessions Judge did not give them any opportunity. 5. As seen from the impugned order, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by either side. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge observed that since it is a claim of minor sons against the father no evidence was felt necessary and arguments were heard straightaway. It is therefore not a case where the petitioners reported no evidence from their side. As seen from the impugned order, the Court seems to have felt that no evidence is necessary. Even if it is a case of minor sons claiming maintenance against the father, still an opportunity shall have to be given to the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their claim regarding their entitlement and also the quantum. The denial of such opportunity to the petitioners would only lead to miscarriage of justice. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge is therefore directed to give an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and then pass an order on merits. The impugned order is therefore held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Family Court as stated above. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2011. Tsy