IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1051 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Hassan Khan S/o. Dastagir Khan …. Petitioner AND Baby Rawdah Ayesha Hurrah D/o. Mehnaz Mateen Shabnam and another. …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1051 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This revision case is filed by the father against order dated 27-06-2008 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad in M.C. No.195 of 2006 by which the lower Court after enquiry under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month to the daughter / first respondent herein. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that previously the petitioner herein was in Gulf countries on his employment and that as on today, he came away to India and that he is now jobless. This Court in this revision cannot take into consideration the alleged subsequent events, which are said to have made the petitioner jobless person. If it is so, it is open to the petitioner to approach the lower Court for necessary relief under appropriate provision of law basing on the alleged subsequent events. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per final settlement deed dated 19-03-2006, the petitioner agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) per month towards maintenance of child for five years and that therefore the present petition for maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month is not maintainable. 4. The petitioner herein as RW-1 in the lower Court marked the final settlement deed as Ex.R-1. The lower Court found that the said quantum of maintenance contained in Ex.R-1 is not adequate having regard to status of the parties and income of the petitioner herein who was working in Gulf countries. I do not find any valid reasons to come to a different conclusion in this revision on the said question of fact. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that after the stay order passed by this Court in the stay petition, the petitioner herein is paying maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month to the first respondent. It is not known how an alleged jobless person could pay Rs.2,000/- per month. It shows that the petitioner’s contentions are not trustworthy. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to disturb the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court. 6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J June 14, 2010. KTL