IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1372 OF 2010 Between: M.Praveen Kumar … PETITIONER And 1. Smt. P. Shobha 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1372 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The husband seeks to file this revision petition questioning order dated 14.06.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in M.C.No.36 of 2008 granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife/first respondent. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that both the petitioner as well as the first respondent are residents of Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal of Ranga Reddy District and that none of them is a resident within Secunderabad and that therefore, the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance case. In fact, the husband took the said plea in his counter filed before the lower Court also. The lower Court did not address itself to that plea of the husband. As the matter now stands, it appears that no document is filed before the lower Court to show that place of residence of the parties is in Ranga Reddy District and not within Secunderabad. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that both the parties are residents of a place in Ranga Reddy District, even then it is to be seen whether the lower Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance case. 3. Section 126 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “(1) Proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district – (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.” From the above provision, it is clear that proceedings may be taken against any person in any district where he is. In this case, the petitioner is admittedly working as helper in N.F.C., Hyderabad. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that office of N.F.C. is also located in Ranga Reddy District and not in Hyderabad. There is no plea in the counter filed by the petitioner in the lower Court to the effect that he is working in a place out of Hyderabad. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is working in N.F.C. at Hyderabad. Both Hyderabad and Secunderabad are within Hyderabad district. Therefore, the first respondent was at liberty to file the maintenance case either in Hyderabad Courts or in Secunderabad Courts. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that order of maintenance passed by the lower Court is without jurisdiction. This Court finds that the lower Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the maintenance case. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is getting a gross salary of Rs.18,355/- and that he has got aged mother and one daughter who are dependents on him and that the lower Court failed to take note of dependency on the petitioner and that the lower Court should have fixed maintenance amount at Rs.2,500/- per month and that the first respondent is residing with two male children who are employed. Under the plea of maintaining his mother, the petitioner counsel plead that maintenance granted to the wife at Rs.5,000/- per month is excessive. Even though the first respondent claimed maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month, the lower Court granted only Rs.5,000/- per month. The said amount of maintenance works out at about 26% or 27% of the petitioner’s gross salary. Apart from the salary, it is the first respondent’s case that the petitioner is owning a house for his living and is getting rents of about Rs.6,000/- per month. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that amount of Rs.5,000/- per month granted to the first respondent/wife towards maintenance is no way excessive. The order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 04, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1372 OF 2010 August 04, 2010 KL