THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.230 OF 2011 DATED:27.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 26.10.2010, in M.C.No.38 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance, was allowed in part, awarding maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and their marriage having taken place on 04.01.2008. According to the 2nd respondent-wife, at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,50,000/- towards Jhoda and Ghoda amount, 4 tulas of gold ornaments and 10 tulas of Silver ornaments and Jehaz articles worth Rs.3,00,000/- as demanded by the petitioner and that since one week after marriage, petitioner and his family members started ill-treating the 2nd respondent demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged that with great difficulty 2nd respondent’s parents gave Rs.40,000/- on 25.01.2008, but the petitioner, his parents and other family members were not satisfied and the ill-treatment continued. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent was sent out of the house while she was in unconscious state having fainted for lack of food on 06.09.2008. It is further alleged that the parents of the 2nd respondent again dropped her at the house on 25.09.2008 and the harassment continued, demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is not disputed that unable to bear the harassment the wife gave a complaint to the women police station, which was registered as Cr.No.122 of 2009 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the same is pending. According to the respondent-wife, petitioner is working as Branch Manager of Suraksha Corporation Services on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and owns two houses, one at Lalapet and another at Babanagar and is earning rental income of Rs.10,000/- and he also owns a TATA Indica car and earning Rs.10,000/- by running the same as taxi. It is also alleged that the petitioner is running a blood bank at Gulbarga, Karnataka and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Petitioner-husband filed counter opposing the claim and denying the various sources of income attributed to him. According to him, previously he was working at Dubai and subsequently, after return to India he became unemployed due to hospitalization and presently he is doing coolie work on daily wages. 4. Admittedly, petitioner-husband was employed at Dubai for some time. Subsequent to return to India, he claims that he is earning daily wages by doing coolie work. No evidence is adduced in support of the said claim. The learned Judge, Family Court, after considering the evidence available on record and also the assets of the petitioner, awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/ per month. Petitioner-husband does not dispute the ownership of the car but says that it belonged to his brother. Ex.B1 shows that the car was seized by the finance company. Ex.B2 shows that the blood bank was closed and it also shows that the petitioner herein was one of the Managing trustees of the Health care Charitable Trust and he made request to the authorities for cancellation of the licence. The house property, even according to the respondent, is ancestral and the petitioner is also having a share therein. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was a man without any means whatsoever or that he is eking out his livelihood by doing manual labour and earning daily wages. 5. Admittedly, in the matrimonial bio-data, petitioner has described himself as a graduate working as Branch Manager in Suraksha Corporation Services on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. Having regard to the educational and employment background of the petitioner, his present claim that now he is working only as daily wage earner cannot be countenanced, significantly he has not stated, the nature of the work he is doing or the amount of income he is getting therefrom. Under those circumstances, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the physical capacity of the petitioner to earn and his potentiality and earning capacity, the trial Court has awarded the amount of Rs.2000/- for maintenance and the same cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the ever increasing cost of living and the basic needs and requirements of the wife for a decent living. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th July, 2011. Tsy