HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.275 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in M.C.No.56 of 2003, dated 02.01.2004, whereby the petitioner-husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,250/- to each of the respondents herein. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner and the second respondent was born out of their wedlock. As the differences arose between the petitioner and the first respondent, they started living separately. Thereafter, the first respondent herein filed the aforesaid M.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each from the petitioner. The trial Court, after analysis of the entire material available on record, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/- p.m. to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Questioning the said order, the petitioner–husband preferred the present revision. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute in so far as the relationship between the parties is concerned. When once it is admitted that the first respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the second respondent was born out of their wedlock, the husband has a solemn duty to maintain them. Though it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent had deserted the petitioner on her own will and, as such, she is not entitled for maintenance, I am unable to countenance his contention for the reason that no wife would leave the company of her husband on her own volition without any cause. Hence, I see no merits in the revision. While admitting the revision, this Court, by order dated 20.02.2004 in Crl.MP.No.1225 of 2004, stayed the impugned order on condition of the revision petitioner paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. towards maintenance to each of the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.MP.No.1940 of 2004 to vacate the said order. This Court, by order dated 23.07.2004, made the interim stay absolute and dismissed the vacate petition. Since this Court had granted interim stay on condition of the revision petitioner paying Rs.2,000/- p.m. to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the said order was made absolute, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the maintenance awarded by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, in M.C.No.56 of 2003, dated 02.01.2004, is reduced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.2,000/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:07.12.2010 usd