HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1984 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case against the order in M.C. No. 181 of 2003 dated 23-09-2006 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Court, Vijayawada assailing the monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- granted to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- granted to respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are respondent and petitioners respectively in the M.C., are husband, wife and their son respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.C. before the trial Court. 4. On 18-12-2009, while admitting this revision, this Court suspended the order under revision on condition of the respondent paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.750/- per month to petitioner No.2 as maintenance on or before 10th day of every succeeding month and also on deposit of 50% of the arrears. To vacate the said order of this Court, petitioners filed Criminal R.C.M.P. No.2107 of 2011 and when the same came up for hearing, at the request of both sides, the revision itself is taken up for disposal. 5. The brief averments of the M.C. before the trail Court are that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 1975. Out of their wedlock, they are blessed with two female children and two male children. Petitioner No.2 is their younger son studying 4th class at Vijayawada. Parents of petitioner No.1 presented cash of Rs.5,000/- and also conveyed Ac.1-00 of agriculture land, gold jewels towards her “Pasupukumkuma” at the time of her marriage with the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent started demanding petitioner No.1 to bring additional amount from her parents and used to beat her for the said purpose. The respondent addicted to vices and is spending money for his vices without taking any responsibility and welfare of the petitioners. He sold away Ac.1-00 of land of petitioner No.1 and misappropriated the entire sale consideration to meet his vices. Respondent No.1 is employee in Federal Bank and got sufficient means and capacity to pay maintenance to the petitioners, but he neglected and intentionally avoided to maintain the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 lodged a report in Machavaram Police Station against the respondent. Thereafter, on the intervention of elders, petitioner No.1 joined the company of the respondent. Again, respondent started ill-treating the petitioners without any reason and again she gave a report in Machavaram Police Station but the Police did not take any action against him. The respondent deserted the petitioners voluntarily. Therefore, the petitioners urged the trial court to grant Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 towards their maintenance. 6. The respondent filed his counter in the M.C. before the trial Court stating that the petitioners, in order to harass the respondent, filed the M.C. The marriage between him and petitioner No.1 was performed about more than 26 years ago and they are blessed with four children. Petitioner No.1 used to harass him without any reasonable cause or fault on his part from the beginning of their marital life. He is not in a position to pay maintenance as claimed by the petitioners. He is working in Federal Bank and drawing a net salary of Rs.1,215/- per month. Their unmarried elder son is working as Lecturer in REACH organization and drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and he is looking after the petitioners. Their daughters have completed their studies and they are also doing jobs in private organizations and they are also looking after the welfare of the petitioners. 7. To prove her case, petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW.1, however, no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW.1 and also got examined Manager of the Federal Bank as RW.2 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. 8. Considering the material produced by both the parties, the trial Court observing that the respondent has been living away from the petitioners since 2003, that he is drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and that the petitioners are dependents on him, held that petitioner No.1 is entitled to maintenance at Rs.1,500/- per month and petitioner No.2 is entitled to Rs.1,000/- per month and accordingly granted the same towards their monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed this revision. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision? 11. Though the respondent claimed that petitioner No.1 used to harass him without any reasonable cause or fault on his part from the beginning of their marital life and that his elder son and daughters are looking after the welfare of the petitioners, he is unable to produce any material before this Court to prove the same except reiterating the pleas and contentions raised before the trial Court. The contention of the respondent that he borrowed money from the bank and third parties and indebted heavily to a tune of Rs.10.00 lakhs and the amount was borrowed for the welfare of the family members including his children, cannot absolve his duty from maintaining the petitioners. Further, since petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife and petitioner No.2 is minor son of the respondent and as he deserted the petitioners, who are dependents on him, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners. Thus, this Court does not see any ground to allow this revision, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order under revision. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:09-09-2011. Stp