JUDGMENT The petitioners in Criminal R.C.No.28 of 2006 are wife and children of the petitioner in R.C.No.1928 of 2005. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as husband, wife and children. 3. Criminal R.C.No.1928 of 2005 is filed by the husband against the order in M.C.No.234 of 2003 dated 19-09-2005, passed by the Family Court, Vijayawada predominantly questioning the quantum of maintenance, whereas Criminal R.C. No. 28 of 2006 is filed by the wife and children against the same order for enhancement and for granting of arrears of maintenance. 4. Both the revision cases are being disposed of by common order since both these revisions arise out of a same order. 5. There is no dispute that the wife is living separately along with the children from her husband. In the evidence, husband stated that he is interested in keeping his children with him but not his wife, which show that the husband deserted his wife. As far as the children are concerned, they are being minors, aged about 11 years, they are entitled for maintenance. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that the wife and children are entitled for maintenance. 6. Though the wife contended that her husband owns two acres of land, she has not produced any material to show that he has any property in his name. According to the wife her, husband works in a petrol bunk and his salary is Rs.4,000/- per month. The husband contends that his salary is only Rs.2,401/- per month. The wife has not adduced any authentic evidence with regard to income of her husband. However, the material on record show that the income of the husband is Rs.2,400/- per month and that he is working in a petrol bunk. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the salary of the husband is more than Rs.2,400/- per month. 7. In such view of the matter, there are no grounds at all for enhancement of the maintenance to the wife and children. 8. Now the question is whether the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and children granted by the trial Court can be reduced. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the husband is that the husband has to lookafter his aged parents and himself, as such, the maintenance amount may be reduced to Rs.300/- per month. 10. 8. Now the question is whether the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and children granted by the trial Court can be reduced. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the husband is that the husband has to lookafter his aged parents and himself, as such, the maintenance amount may be reduced to Rs.300/- per month. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that reducing the maintenance amount to Rs.400/- per month each to the wife and children would meet the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the maintenance granted by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.400/- per month each to the wife and children. with the above modification in the quantum of maintenance, the Criminal R.C.No.1928 of 2005 filed by the husband is partly allowed and Criminal R.C.No.28 of 2006 filed by the wife and the children is dismissed.