IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.530 of 2002 Between: K. Nageshwara Rao ..... REVISION PETITIONER AND Smt. K. Anuradha, W/o. K. Nageshwara Rao and another ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.530 OF 2002 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2002 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in M.C.No.81 of 2001. 2. None appears for the parties. 3. In view of the fact that the criminal revision case is of the year 2002, that too relating to a maintenance case, it is not desirable to grant any further adjournments. Hence, perused the Judgment. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the trail Court. 5. Petitioners, who are wife and daughter of the respondent, filed M.C.No.81 of 2001 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for claiming maintenance alleging that the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was performed on 16.10.1994 at Annavaram. Thereafter, the wife joined with her husband and later the husband was harassing the wife for additional dowry. The husband addicted to bad habits like consuming alcohol etc., and on 12.02.2001 both the petitioners were necked out from the house and as both the petitioners have no other go, started residing with the mother of the first petitioner. The respondent is a Central Government employee and getting Rs.12,000/- per month and hence she prays to grant Rs.4,500/- per month towards maintenance of both the petitioners. 6. The respondent filed counter admitting the relationship and stated that the first petitioner was a quarrelsome lady and she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house very frequently; that the first petitioner and her sister was doing business jointly and she was getting Rs.10,000/- per month, that there was no negligence on his part and hence, he prays to dismiss the maintenance case. 7. To substantiate the case, first petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P-1, copy of the report. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.R-1. 8. On appreciation evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the husband neglected the wife and the child and directed the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.600/- per month to the second petitioner. Challenging the same, the present revision case is filed. 9. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 401 and 397 of Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the finding is shown to be illegal or incorrect or improper in entirety, this Court would not interfere with the same. To know whether the findings are correct and proper, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of PW.1, who categorically stated that after the marriage, she was necked out from the house; that the husband was harassing her to bring additional dowry; and that her husband was having some extramarital relationship with one Poornavathi, who resides opposite to his house. There is no other reason for PW.1 and her child to leave the matrimonial house of the petitioner herein and she has no source of income so as to maintain themselves without male assistance. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly accepted the evidence of PW.1 and came to the conclusion that the husband neglected the wife and the child and that he was having an extramarital relationship with another woman. That is a just ground for the wife to leave the house and live separately. Therefore, there was a justifiable cause for the first petitioner to leave the company of her husband. Hence, the finding that there was negligence on the part of the husband is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 10. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, Ex.R-1, salary certificate, filed by the husband would clearly go to show that he was getting gross salary of Rs.9,551/- and a net income of Rs.5,755/-. After taking note of the statutory deductions, it can be said that the husband was getting more than Rs.6,000/- per month on the date of awarding the maintenance. Therefore, when the respondent was getting Rs.6,000/- per month, 1/3 of the income of the husband can reasonably be granted towards maintenance to the wife and the child. Perhaps that is the reason why the trial Court has awarded the maintenance. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that granting maintenance at Rs.1,800/- per month to both the petitioners cannot be said to be on higher side and is based upon the income of the husband. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J October 5, 2009 MD