HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1312 of 2000 DATE:09.03.2010 Between: Vajjuri Sambasiva Rao … Petitioner and Vajjuri Venkayamma and two others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1312 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2000 in M.C.No.10 of 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, awarding maintenance of Rs.400/- per month each to respondents 1 and 2 herein towards maintenance, who are none other than the wife and son of the petitioner herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was performed in the year 1991 at G.Konduru as per Hindu rites and customs, and during their wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born. Subsequently, as the petitioner is neglecting and is not taking care to maintain the respondents 1 and 2, they approached the Family Court, Vijayawada, and filed M.C. No.10 of 2000 claiming maintenance of Rs.500/- each from the date of filing of the petition. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, and on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, but no documentary evidence was placed on either side. On hearing both sides and on a consideration of the entire evidence, the court below partly allowed the maintenance case, by an order, dated 08.09.2000, awarding maintenance of Rs.400/- per month each to the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of the said order. The same is questioned in this revision. 3. Though notices have been served on the respondents 1 and 2, they have not chosen to put in their appearance. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. In fact, the maintenance amount of Rs.400/- per month awarded by the court below to each of the respondents 1 and 2 in these hard days is not sufficient. In the light of the same and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment impugned in this revision, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed while confirming the judgment, dated 08.09.2000, in M.C.No.10 of 2000, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. ______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 9th March, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1312 of 2000 (Dismissed ) Date:09-03-2010 CBS