THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1728 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The petitioner claiming to be the wife of the first respondent herein filed M.C.No.67 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. During the course of trial, the petitioner got herself examined as P.W-1 and two more witnesses were examined on her behalf as P.Ws.2 and 3. The husband was examined as R.W-1 and one more witness was examined as R.W-2. No documentary evidence was marked on either side. The trial Court, having considered the said oral evidence on record, while allowing the said M.C. awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the said M.C. The same was questioned by the first respondent herein- husband by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.22 of 2002 and the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, by his judgment, dated 30.06.2004, while holding that the petitioner herein-wife is entitled for maintenance, however, reduced the same from Rs.400/- to Rs.200/-. The same is questioned by the wife by filing this Revision. Though the notice was served on the first respondent-husband, he has not chosen to put in his appearance. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The only point which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge for reducing the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner-wife was that the record does not disclose that the husband is having fixed income worth mentioning or any other properties fetching income. May be, it is true, but it shall not be forgotten that the petitioner herein is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent and as such, the first respondent is under an obligation to maintain her. Even the sum of Rs.400/- per month awarded to the petitioner for her maintenance by the trial Court is a very meagre amount and that, in these hard days, it is very difficult for any individual to survive with such a meagre amount. If it is reduced to Rs.200/- per month, it would be further more difficult for the petitioner to survive with it and the very purpose of awarding maintenance to her does not give its effect. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the lower revisional Court reducing the maintenance from Rs.400/- per month to Rs.200/- per month is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner-wife at the rate of Rs.400/- per month, as awarded by the trial Court, from the date of filing of the said M.C. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 24th February 2011 DR