THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2130 & 2131 of 2008 Date:21.12.2011 Between: Vinukonda Venkata Narasimhacharyulu ..... Petitioner. AND Vinukonda Nirmala and others. .....Respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2130 & 2131 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: This common order disposes of both the petitions. The petitioner is the father of the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is his wife. Respondent No.1 filed M.C.No.57 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur seeking maintenance at ` 3,000/- per month for herself and at the same rate in favour of the 2nd respondent herein. On the ground that the wife was an employee, the learned trial Judge dismissed the claim of the wife. She, however, awarded maintenance at ` 1,000/- per month in favour of the minor daughter of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the wife as well as the husband preferred revisions before the Sessions Court, Guntur. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur disposed of both the applications enhancing maintenance to ` 1,500/- per month in favour of the daughter. He upheld the order of the trial Court in rejecting to grant maintenance in favour of the wife. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred the present petition seeking for the setting aside of the order of the revisional Court as well as the trial Court. 2. Smt. P. Rjeswari, learned counsel for the petitioner husband contended that the petitioner husband has two sons through an earlier marriage before his marriage with the 1st respondent wife. She further contended that the 1st respondent wife was also married earlier, that her former husband was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation and when he died, the 1st respondent was given compassionate appointment by the Life Insurance Corporation. Thus, it is her case that the 1st respondent has been working in the Life Insurance Corporation. Sri R. Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent wife does not dispute this part of the claim. In fact, the salary of the wife and the refusal to grant maintenance in favour of the wife are not the issues in controversy. The real controversy is regarding the quantum of maintenance to be awarded in favour of the minor daughter. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 contended that when the case was laid, the daughter was only three years old and that the learned trial Judge, therefore, thought it fit to award maintenance at ` 1,000/- only. He further submitted that the daughter is at present 12 years old and that award of maintenance at ` 1,500/- per month is quite just and reasonable for the daughter to make a living. I agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the wife and daughter that award of maintenance at ` 1,500/- per month is quite just and reasonable. 4. However, it is not merely the need of the daughter but the capacity of her father also is to be considered in determining the quantum of maintenance in favour of the daughter. Admittedly, the petitioner husband has been earning ` 20,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the petitioner has to maintain his two sons through his former marriage and also to maintain his cripple aged mother. She also pointed out that the responsibility to maintain the daughter rests not only with the husband but with the wife as well since the wife is also an employed person. I agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the husband. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to take into consideration the income of the petitioner, the encumbrances of the petitioner like two sons through another marriage and crippled aged mother and the liability of the wife/1st respondent to partake the responsibility of maintaining the daughter. When these factors are conjointly taken into consideration, it would be just and proper to determine the maintenance at ` 1250/- per month. However, the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at ` 1,000/- only from the date of the petition till the order of the revisional Court and from the date of the revisional Court, the petitioner shall be liable to pay maintenance in favour of the 2nd respondent at ` 1250/- per month. 5. Both the Criminal Petitions are ordered accordingly. ____________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:21.12.2011 mrb