THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1574 OF 2003 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, in M.C.No.31 of 2002 awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition, the husband preferred this revision. Facts in brief are that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised about 34 years back to the date of petition and out of their wedlock two female children were born to them. Subsequently the petitioner developed illegal intimacy with one Nagamma and started harassing the first respondent and ultimately he necked out her from the house and neglected his wife and children. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner got 11 acres of agricultural land and is getting substantial income from it and he is also having two houses, in spite of which he is not looking after their welfare. Hence she filed the present maintenance case seeking maintenance from her husband at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner filed counter affidavit refuting the various allegations made in the petition. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the respondent and Ex.A.1 was marked. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and Ex.B.1 was marked. The court below having analysed the entire material available on record held that the petitioner has wilfully neglected the respondent and hence he is liable to pay maintenance to her and accordingly passed an order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent – wife from the date of petition i.e. 23.09.2002. As stated supra, aggrieved thereby the husband preferred this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As seen from the order impugned in this revision, it is clear that the trial court having appreciated the evidence let in by both the parties has categorically held that there was a valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent herein and that the petitioner has wilfully neglected and deserted the first respondent. The said finding in my considered view is well reasoned and hence the same needs no interference. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as devoid of any merit. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010