THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Crl.R.C.No.943 OF 2010
JUDGMENT :
None appears for the petitioner and there is no representation. Heard learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.
2. This criminal revision case arises against the order dated 19.12.2008 in M.C.No.176 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC- cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII-Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are wife and minor son, filed M.C.176 of 2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner-husband seeking maintenance. Respondent No.2 stated that petitioner is working as Medical Sales Manager in M/s Cadila Health Centre and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month, besides incentives of Rs.15,000/- per month and 2 requested to grant Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.3 towards their maintenance. Petitioner filed counter opposing the claim of the respondents. He stated that he lost his job and they have entered into compromise in the Lok Adalath. But the trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, granted Rs.5,000/- towards monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of petition i.e., 05.07.2007 and dismissed the claim of respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he never neglected his wife and son. Respondent No.2 suspected that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with one Sharmila. Complaints were lodged by respondent No.2 and Sharmila against each other. Thereafter, respondent No.2 entered into compromise with the said Sharmila before Lok Adalath. The trial Court, without appreciating the evidence properly, 3 granted maintenance. Hence, the petitioner-husband requested the Court to set aside the impugned order.
5. Considering the above said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly considered the income of the petitioner and other aspects and granted Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to respondent No.2 and dismissed the claim of respondent No.3. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, warranting interference.
6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
7. As a sequel to, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Date: 03.02.2022 Note: CC by one week.
(B/O) Yvkr