THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.Nos.1530 AND 1842 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties in both these revisions are common and since the point involved in these revisions is one and the same, these two revisions are being disposed of by this common order. Both these Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the order passed in M.P.No.178 of 2003 in M.C.No.12 of 1999 dated 05.09.2003 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trail of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast cases-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience and better understanding of the matter, the parties herein are referred to as husband, wife and children. Wife and two children filed M.C.No.12 of 1999 seeking maintenance from the husband at the rate of Rs.500/- per month each. Husband contested the said case by filing counter. The trial Court, after an analysis of the entire evidence available on record, allowed the said M.C. by an order dated 11.06.2001, directing the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and two children at the rate of 500/- per month each from the date of petition. Subsequently, the wife and two children filed the M.P.No.178 of 2003 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- to each of them, in view of increase of salary of the husband and also hike in every walks of life. However, the trial Court, by an order dated 05.09.2003, enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.900/- each to the wife and two children. Questioning the said order, the husband preferred Crl.R.C.No.1530 of 2003; wife and children preferred Crl.R.C.No.1842 of 2003 stating that the enhancement of maintenance awarded by the trail Court is inadequate keeping in view the drastic change of circumstances. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, held that the maintenance amount of Rs.500/- awarded in M.C.No.12 of 1999 is not at all sufficient to meet the expenses of wife and two school going children in these hard days. Therefore, the trial Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.900/- per month keeping in view the earning capacity of the husband. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.1842 of 2003 i.e., wife and two children has drawn my attention to the pay slip of the husband for the month of July, 2008 and submits that the petitioner is drawing an amount of Rs.17,873/- per month and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- each to the wife and two children. In my considered view, the aforesaid document cannot be taken into consideration since the pay slip of the husband pertains to the month of July, 2008 showing that he was drawing salary of Rs.17,873/- per month, whereas the impugned order was passed on 05.09.2003 i.e., long prior to the said pay slip. If it is a fact that the husband is getting salary of Rs.17,873/- per month, it is always left open to the wife and children to file a petition under section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. The trial Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.900/- in accordance with the change of circumstances and living conditions, as on the date of the impugned order, as proved by the wife and children. The Court below was justified in awarding the said amount. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.900/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court. Both the Criminal Revision Cases are accordingly dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 19.08.2010 Gsn.