Judgment · High Court

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

The point that is raised in this revision, which is coming up for admission, is whether an order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Warangal, in Maintenance Case No.83 of 2009 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. granting maintenance suffers from any illegality or is otherwise unreasonable.

The petitioner is the husband. Maintenance Case has been filed by his wife for herself and on behalf of the minor daughter of the parties. There is no dispute about the relationship between them. After considering the matter, the learned Judge of the Family Court in principle held that the wife and the minor daughter of the petitioner herein are entitled to maintenance. He then considering the means of the husband fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.2,000/- each per month to the wife and daughter and granted them from the date of the order passed by him.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions to show that the impugned order is illegal. I have gone through the order of the learned Judge and it shows that he has considered the evidence and other aspects in right perspective and came to the above conclusions. The quantum of maintenance awarded is also reasonable. It may also be noted that this is a revision and this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded on evidence by the learned Judge unless they are shown to be against reason and evidence. The impugned order does not show that it suffers from any such defect or is otherwise infirm or illegal.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. _________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 21-07-2011 Gsn.