THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRL.P.NO.7339 OF 2008 ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 24-10-2008 passed in M.P.No.437 of 2003 in M.C.No.170 of 1997 by the Judge, Family Court, Visakahapatnam, the present criminal petition is filed seeking enhancement of maintenance. 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the daughters of the 1st respondent. They filed M.P.No.437 of 2003 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.2,000/- per month on the premise that 1st respondent is getting substantial amounts through employment and other sources. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of maintenance? A perusal of the record goes to show that M.C.No.170 of 1997 was filed by petitioners 1 to 3 claiming maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. The Court below after analyzing the material available on record and after perusing the oral and documentary evidence produced on either side, granted an amount of Rs.400/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3 and negatived the claim of 1st petitioner. Thereafter, petitioners 2 and 3 filed MP No.437of 2003 seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.2,000/-. Since 1st respondent was called absent, he was set ex parte and the Court below enhanced the compensation from Rs.400/- to Rs.2,000/- each to petitioners 2 and 3. Having learnt the ex parte order passed by the Court below, 1st respondent filed petition seeking to set aside the said ex parte order. The learned Judge, while passing order dated 24-10-2008, on merits, granted an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. As seen from the order dated 24-10-2008 in MP No.437 of 2003 in M.C.No.170 of 1997, 1st respondent admitted that he is getting foreign money from one Father of Kerala, who is residing in America and that the documents filed by the petitioners show that 1st respondent filed UTI certificates and encashed the sane. The Court below came to the conclusion that the income of 1st respondent was more than Rs.40,000/- per year, and accordingly granted an amount of Rs.1,000/- each to petitioners 2 and 3. As petitioners 2 and 3 are twins and while taking into consideration their needs, the Court below granted Rs.1,000/- each to them towards monthly maintenance. As there is no substantial evidence on record to prove further earnings of 1st respondent, granting maintenance to petitioners 2 and 3 by the Court below, in my view, is justified and therefore, further enhancement of maintenance does not arise. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the Court below. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J rkk Dated: 24-3-2011