THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No.1322 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Mr. Timothy T. Gonmei S/o. Namdilenang Gonmei R/o. Hubli Division, Karnataka. PETITIONER And 1. The State of A.P., rep. by it’s A.P.P., High Court, Hyderabad, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Sri C.M.R. Velu Counsel for Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed by the husband against order dated 7.06.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in M.C.No.51 of 2008 granting maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the second respondent/wife from him. The petitioner is working as Senior Divisional Personnel Officer in the railways and drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. As the matter now stands, both the parties are living separately. The fact that the second respondent is a Dentist by qualification and daughter of a retired I.P.S. Officer has no relevance in deciding the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She is not earning any money and is not pursuing her Dentist profession. She is taking coaching for appearing in All India Service Examinations. The lower Court found that the petitioner on transfer to Hubli, left matrimonial home leaving the second respondent in the railway quarters and that the petitioner did not inform the second respondent about his transfer to Hubli. Waiting for 49 days, the second respondent left the quarters after packing her belongings and went to her parents’ house. Even though the petitioner was supporting the second respondent initially for taking coaching, the petitioner did not support her prior to her leaving the railway quarters. Even though the petitioner stated that he made attempts for reunion, the lower Court pointed out that no evidence is let in with regard to his alleged efforts for reunion. It is not as if the petitioner filed any petition in marital court for restitution of conjugal rights against the second respondent. Thus there is sufficient cause for the second respondent to live separately from the petitioner and claim maintenance from him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. With regard to the quantum, the petitioner contends that he has got brothers and sisters, who are all unmarried and that he has to support them. Admittedly the petitioner’s mother is a Government Teacher at Manipur and his brother is Civil Engineer, and another brother is working in District Commissioner’s office and another brother is a Doctor and one sister is a lecturer apart from one sister doing medicine. Neglecting his wife, the petitioner cannot show preference to support his brothers and sisters, who are all well placed. Having regard to status of the parties and income of the petitioner, maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month granted by the lower Court is not in any way excess. The order passed by the lower court suffers from no infirmity. Hence the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 21st July, 2010 Js.