IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1439 OF 2010 Between: Abdul Raheem … PETITIONER And 1. Syed Atiya 2. Taba Fatima 3. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1439 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is filed by the father against order dated 20.07.2010, passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in M.C.No.186 of 2006, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent who is minor child and who is a mentally retarded person, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner questions quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court. According to the petitioner, he has to maintain his first wife and five children born through her and that the second respondent is entitled for free treatment under Central Government Scheme in government hospitals and is also entitled for pension under that scheme. No papers relating to the scheme are filed in Court. Till now, the second respondent did not receive any amount of pension under the scheme and did not take any treatment in any government hospital. 3. According to P.W.1, who is mother of the second respondent and wife of the petitioner, she is incurring not only medical expenses of Rs.5,000/- but also monthly doctor consultation charges of Rs.2,000/-, food and clothing of Rs.4,000/- , physiotherapy of Rs.200/- per day, transportation of Rs.4,000/- and expenditure for shoes of Rs.2,000/- per month. The petitioner being a father, is uncharitable to drive the minor child to ‘sarkari dawakhana’ without being treated in proper hospital. 4. According to the first respondent, the minor second respondent is hospitalized in Healing Touch Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, from the point of view of the child, even the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month may not be fully sufficient for her maintenance. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is doing real estate business earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,0000/- per day. 5. The petitioner contends that he is unemployed person. Inspite of the alleged unemployment, he married two wives and produced six children. The said facts undoubtedly disclose that the petitioner has got capacity to earn and is earning much to maintain all his family members. Therefore, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court is in no way excessive. 6. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 11, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1439 OF 2010 August 11, 2010 KL