THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 663 of 2006. ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dt. 17.2.2006 in M.C.No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad whereby the learned Judge awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to each of the petitioners. The respondents herein filed M.C.No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to each of them on the ground that the petitioner herein, who is the husband of the 1st respondent wilfully neglected to maintain them though he is having sufficient means. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of 1st respondent was performed on 8.12.2002 with the petitioner herein and at the time of marriage a cash of Rs. 50,000/-, 10 tulas gold, Hero Honda motor cycle and sarees worth Rs. 20,000/- were given to the petitioner towards dowry and after the marriage, the 1st respondent joined the company of the petitioner and lead marital life with him and thereafter the petitioner and his parents started harassing the 1st respondent for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and that her father paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 14.3.2004 and even then, the petitioner and his parents did not stop their harassment for additional dowry and on 5.6.2004, they obtained the signatures of the 1st respondent on two non-judicial stamp papers and further they also filed a case against her father at P.S. Aladurg and in the meanwhile she became pregnant and went to her parents house for delivery and that on 17.6.2004 the 2nd petitioner was born and though the information was sent to the petitioner about the delivery, he did not come to see either the 1st petitioner or the 2nd petitioner and he continued to neglect them and in the circumstances she filed the maintenance petition claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- p.m. to each stating that the petitioner is working as an Excise Constable and earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/- apart from a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as house rents. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations made against him and also stating that he cannot pay the maintenance sought by the petitioner. Before the trial court, the 1st respondent herself examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs: P.1 and P.2. The petitioner himself examined as RW.1 but no documents are marked on his behalf. The trial court after considering the material brought on record, allowed the petition granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p.m. to each of the petitioners from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent in the MC filed the present revision case contending that while passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court Judge did not take into consideration that a sum of Rs. 2,100/- is being deducted from the salary of the petitioner towards loan amount taken from UCO bank and he is also maintaining his old aged parents from his salary. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent is the wife and the 2nd respondent is the minor son of the revision petitioner. Therefore, they are entitled to maintenance from the revision petitioner and the trial court rightly passed the impugned order. However, since the date of said order, inflation loomed large and as a result thereof, cost of living has gone up. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the revision case is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the revision case is dismissed. ___________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 19.2.2010. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 663 of 2006. Dt. 19.2.2010.