THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.912 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 30.03.2009 passed in M.C.No.193 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. from the date of the application. 2. When the revision came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/wife. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband submits that the 1st respondent/wife is an earning member and she is capable of maintaining herself and in which case, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. to her is not warranted. 5. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The petitioner, who is the respondent in maintenance case, did not choose to examine himself as a witness. The 1st respondent herein, who is the wife, got herself examined as PW.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the evidence of PW.1 and proceeded to allow her application by granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. The fact that the petitioner herein is a Manager in I.C.I.C.I. Bank is not in dispute. He is getting a salary of Rs.28,000/- p.m. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered this aspect and fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers either under Section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:05th August, 2009. cs