THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.224 OF 2011 DATED:21.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 08.12.2010, in M.C.No.01 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ongole, wherein the 1st respondent was awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month and 2nd respondent was awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. The marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent took place on 21.08.2003. According to the 1st respondent, about one year after the marriage, petitioner herein started harassing her for additional dowry and sent her out of the house and it is not disputed that subsequently petitioner filed O.P.No.180 of 2006 for divorce and the same was allowed. 1st respondent herein sought maintenance on the ground that the petitioner had wilfully neglected to pay any maintenance to her. Petitioner is admittedly a Mason. 1st respondent claimed maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.1000/- per month for her daughter on the ground that the petitioner is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. P.Ws.1 and 2 have testified that the petitioner is earning Rs.400/- per day. The trial Court has estimated the income of the petitioner to be more than Rs.5000/- per month and awarded Rs.1500/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1000/- per month to the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is working as a Mason his occupation is only seasonal and he will not be having work continuously through out the year. Even if it is considered to be so, still at an average, petitioner would be certainly earning Rs.500/- per day. The amount of Rs.1500/- for the wife and Rs.1000/- per month to the child as awarded by the Family Court cannot be considered to be on the higher side having regard to the ever increasing cost of living and the basic needs and requirements of the respondents 1 and 2 for a decent living. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st July, 2011. Tsy