THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.317 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed by the petitioners against the order in F.C.O.P.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Vizianagaram, claiming enhancement of maintenance. 2. The parties are referred as in the lower Court. 3. The 1st petitioner is said to be wife and petitioners Nos.2 to 4 are children of the respondent and the marriage was performed in the year, 1995. There seems to be disputes subsequently and the respondent has neglected to maintain them and consequently they were made to leave the house and the company of the respondent. The respondent is said to be having some ancestral landed property and also working by labour and as such, the claim was made for Rs.1,500/- per month to each of the petitioners. The respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioners for maintenance and also denied the income and the earning capacity. The lower Court after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was neglect on the part of the respondent and the petitioners are not able to sustain by themselves and granted a maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.250/- each per month to petitioners Nos.2 and 3 each and Rs.100/- to the 4th petitioner, which is as good as rejection of the claim for maintenance. The total amount that was granted for maintenance is only Rs.1,000/-. The respondent has not filed any revision challenging the liability to pay the maintenance. 4. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the lower Court is reasonable? 5. POINT: So far as the cause of the petitioners to live separately and their inability to maintain themselves is concerned, from the evidence on record the lower Court came to the conclusion that the respondent has neglected the petitioners. There is also no proof of the petitioners being able to sustain by themselves. Consequently, it was held that the respondent is liable to maintain the petitioners. It was also found that the respondent was said to be having some landed property and the income per year will be about Rs.5,000/- per year. The lower court has failed to take into consideration the earning of the respondent by doing labour work, which will definitely a factum in determining the maintenance. It is not as though that the respondent is aged and unable to do any work. 6. In view of the above circumstances, taking into consideration the age of the respondent, it is difficult to believe that he will be staying at the house idle without doing any work either as a Khalasi in the timber market as alleged by the 1st petitioner or any other labour work. There is no physical disability to the respondent. In such circumstances, it is his duty to earn and maintain the family. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a maintenance of Rs.750/- per month is granted to the 1st petitioner and a sum of Rs.500/- each per month is granted to petitioners Nos.2 to 4. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23-11-2011 INL