THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1111 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2004 in M.C.No.35 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the learned Judge allowed the application, directing the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioners 1 to 3 @ Rs.750/- per month each. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/respondent filed this revision. The brief facts of the case are as follows: “P.B.Parveen Sultana married with the respondent/P.S.Mahmood was performed on 29.1.1995 at Cuddapah. At the time of marriage, Rs.35,000/- towards dowry, 12 tulas of gold and 25 tulas of silver, and other household furniture was given to the respondent and thus her parents incurred Rs.2 ½ lakhs towards her marriage expenses. After the marriage, she joined the respondent at Chilla Mathur at Ananthapur District and lived together for some time but after that respondent started harassing her with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- to purchase Hero Honda and bracelet and chain and also to repay the loans. She further stated that respondent is a drunkard and womaniser and was beating her. On two or three occasions her parents gave Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- to the respondent for his requirements as per his demand, she also stated that during her 8 years marriage life she stayed with her parents for 6 years and finally about 4 months back he sent her out of the house with a demand of additional dowry. Her parents extended financial help to her while she was residing with respondent but now her father is retired. Respondent is Head Constable and thus getting Rs.7,000/- per month besides that he is also actor and thus he is getting Rs.5,000/- per month and he is having 3 houses at Chilla Mathur and getting Rs.2,500/- per month towards rent and also having agricultural lands and thus his agriculture income is Rs.1 lakh per annum and hence, she request the court to grant an amount of Rs.1,500/- to each of them”. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. This Court perused the entire records and also the order passed by the lower Court. It is seen from the record that the order passed by the lower Court is of the year 2004. This Court is of the view that the amount ordered by the trial Court is in accordance with law and there is no need to interfere with the same after a lapse of six years. Hence, there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 28th June, 2010. PNV