IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1851 OF 2010 Between: A. Srinivasa Charyulu …Petitioner And 1. Smt. A. Mnjula Vani 2. A. Ramanjana Chery 3. The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1851 OF 2010 ORDER: The revision petitioner who is husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent seeks to file this revision petition questioning order, dated 02.092.010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District in M.C.No.136 of 2008, awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Factum of the parties living separately since prior to filing of the case in the lower Court, is also not in dispute. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that the first respondent obtained divorce against the petitioner. Therefore, the question of the first respondent joining the petitioner for leading family life, is out of question. The main thrust in this revision petition is about quantum of maintenance. Quantum of maintenance is a question of fact and it was decided by the lower Court having regard to evidence placed by both the parties. It cannot be validly questioned in a revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower Court struck off defence of the revision petitioner for non-payment of interim maintenance ordered by that Court, without there being any legal provision empowering the lower Court to do the same. Inspite of striking off the defence, nothing prevented the revision petitioner to examine himself as a witness in the lower Court at least to deny evidence of P.W.1 with regard to income. According to the second respondent/P.W.1, the petitioner is working as a Poojari in a reputed temple and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and is also getting rents of Rs.2,000/- per month and agricultural income of Rs.50,000/- per annum from Acres 30.00 of land. According to the respondents, the petitioner is getting income of Rs.25,000/- per month. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner in the lower Court. The petitioner did not even comply with order of interim maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the revision petitioner to contend that the award of maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 is excessive. The petitioner is a cantankerous and a litigious husband/father who does not want to pay even single paise to the respondents 1 and 2 towards maintenance. Apart from moral responsibility and religious duty to maintain his family members, the petitioner has got social responsibility and also legal duty. The petitioner failed to honour all his obligations. He did not even comply with the interim order passed by this Court in this revision petition. Having regard to income of the revision petitioner as spoken by P.W.1, award of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 by the lower Court is not in any way excessive or unjust. I see no impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1851 OF 2010 December 29, 2010 KL