HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2116 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 29.05.2010 in M.C.No.144 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein seeking maintenance was allowed awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to each of the children i.e. respondent Nos.3 and 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein is the husband of the second respondent and father of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed M.C.No.144 of 2008 against the petitioner, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance on the ground that in spite of having sufficient means, the petitioner has neglected to maintain them. According to respondents Nos.2 to 4, on 27.04.2007, the petitioner herein beat the second respondent- wife demanding additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs, that she attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison having got vexed with the conduct of her husband and that she was admitted in a hospital. According to respondent Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner is owning a house at Prakasam Panthulu Nagar, Gajularamaram, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by way of rents and is also owning four autos and getting Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the petition and inter alia contending that he is working in a private company on a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and that he has no other source of income and he is unable to pay any separate maintenance. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and no documentary evidence was marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court held that the wife and children were justified in living separately from the husband and also held that the petitioner herein never cared to look after his wife and children or provide any maintenance to them. On the question of means, the trial Court, based on the admission of the petitioner herein, found that he is having four autos and he is also having house property. It is not disputed that respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein also filed a suit for partition of the properties which comprised the plots and house property, as can be seen from Ex.P.7, judgment in O.S.No.843 of 2008. Based on the evidence, the trial Court held that the petitioner herein can be expected to be earning around Rs.20,000/- p.m. and, accordingly, awarded Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.3,000/- p.m. to each of the two children. There are absolutely no valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. As the maintenance was awarded duly taking into consideration the assets and liabilities of both the parties and the basic needs of life and the educational expenses of the two children, there are no merits in the revision case. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. G.V. SEETHAPATHY,J Date:11.07.2011 usd