IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.908 of 2010 DATE:05.07.2010 Between: Mirza Ayaz Baig …… Petitioner And: Smt.Faqera Naheed and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.908 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is sought to be filed by the husband/father questioning order of interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to the wife and Rs.1,000/- awarded to the minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C in M.P.No.784 of 2009 in M.C. No.184 of 2009 by the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad by order dated 21.12.2009. 2) Main objection of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is working as teacher in Government High School and is earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and that therefore she is not entitled for either maintenance or interim maintenance. No doubt, at all places in the lower Court, the 1st respondent described her occupation as teacher. But, there is absolutely no material on record to show that she is working in a Government school and getting salary more than Rs.15,000/- per month. In case the 1st respondent is a teacher in a private school or convent, then she gets only a pittance as salary. No record is produced by the petitioner in the lower Court to show that the 1st respondent is a Government teacher. In the absence of any material on record, the lower Court is justified in awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife. The petitioner’s counsel stated that notice is given to the Head Master of the Government High School, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad under R.T.I. Act to furnish particulars of salary of the 1st respondent. In case he secures any documentary evidence showing that the 1st respondent is working in a Government school and is having sufficient income, then the petitioner is at liberty to approach the lower Court with a petition to vacate the interim order of maintenance passed by the lower Court in so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. 3) Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 5, 2010 KSH