ORDER : Since these Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the same order passed by the Court below, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order. 2. These Criminal Revision Cases, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed against the Order dated 04.02.2020 passed in M.C.No.107 of 2016 by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 3. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.342 of 2020 is respondent in the M.C. and the respondents 1 to 3 in the said case are petitioners in the M.C., who are the wife and daughters of the petitioner respectively. 4. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 5. The petitioners filed M.C.No.107 of 2016 before the Court below against the respondent seeking maintenance of Rs.40,000/- each to them, apart from Rs.50,000/- per year to each of petitioners 2 and 3 towards their educational expenses. It is stated in the petition that 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was performed on 17.04.2008 at Vijayawada as per muslim rites and customs. They were blessed with two female children viz. petitioners 2 and 3. The respondent used to take 1st petitioner to Muscat on account of his employment. When 1st petitioner stayed in her in-law’s house in the year 2014, her in-laws, sister-in-law and others threatened her with dire consequences by using filthy language and beat her indiscriminately and demanded her to bring Rs.10.00 lakhs towards additional dowry, failing which they would not allow her to matrimonial home and necked out her from the home. Since then, 1st petitioner is residing in the house of her parents with her children and the respondent was residing at Muscat. In August, 2015, when 1st petitioner along with elders went to her in-law’s house and asked whereabouts of respondent, her in-laws and sister-in-law abused her in filthy language, demanded Rs.10.00 lakhs and sent back her stating that respondent would come in October, 2015. Thereafter, the respondent and his parents obtained divorce from Quazi of A.P. Waqf Board, Hyderabad without her consent and knowledge. 1st petitioner has no movable or immovable properties of her own and she is depending on respondent. Her parents are unable to maintain her. Thereafter, the respondent and his parents obtained divorce from Quazi of A.P. Waqf Board, Hyderabad without her consent and knowledge. 1st petitioner has no movable or immovable properties of her own and she is depending on respondent. Her parents are unable to maintain her. The respondent is working as an Accountant in Sallan Industrial Investment, LLC, Sohar of Oman, Muscat and earning more than Rs.2.00 lakhs per month and has movable and immovable properties at Hyderabad, and has got means to maintain the petitioners. He wilfully neglected the petitioners to maintain. Hence, the petition. 6. The respondent filed a counter admitting the marriage with 1st petitioner and blessing with petitioners 2 and 3 out of the wedlock and his employment at Muscat, and contended that after the marriage, 1st petitioner started quarrelling with him and did not move closely with him. She did not accept for family planning. She did not look after his parents, when he is out of country. She started harassing him to buy gold ornaments and send her to Vijayawada with valuable ornaments. He narrated an incident occurred on 17.04.2014 and stated that he was very upset and tried his level best to continue his marital life, but his efforts were in vain. 1st petitioner insulted him, threatened him with dire consequences in front of elders of both parties, when he advised her not to harass and quarrel with him. She did not change her behavior. Health of his parents deteriorated because of her harassment. They gave a report to Golconda police on 23.06.2015 with regard to SMS threatening of 1st petitioner. Under the circumstances, the respondent is unable to continue marital life with 1st petitioner, and on 19.07.2015, he pronounced talaq in the presence of two witnesses at Sohar in Oman and it has been confirmed by the office of the Government Qazi Qile Vide No.381/44/1437H, dated 16.01.2016 following due course of law. All the documents along with original SBI Demand Draft dated 11.03.2016 for Rs.23,000/-, representing the iddat drawn in favour of 1st petitioner, were sent through Registered Post on 14.01.2016 and the same was returned unclaimed. The respondent published the same in Saakshinews paper on 26.01.2016. All the documents along with original SBI Demand Draft dated 11.03.2016 for Rs.23,000/-, representing the iddat drawn in favour of 1st petitioner, were sent through Registered Post on 14.01.2016 and the same was returned unclaimed. The respondent published the same in Saakshinews paper on 26.01.2016. After completion of due process of law, he obtained Divorce Certificate from Waqf Board of A.P. State vide 05145 issue No.60, dated 18.02.2016, and the same was published in India’s largest circulated Urdu daily newspaper Munsif Daily, Hyderabad on 01.02.2016. After knowing the same, 1st petitioner filed D.V.C.No.32 of 2016 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada against the respondent and family members. The respondent is earning OMR 320 only, which comes to Rs.50,000/- per month and spending Rs.15,000/- towards rent in Sohar and Rs.12,000/- towards his conveyance to work place. He has to look after his old aged parents. 1st petitioner is tailoring work and embroidery work and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. 1st petitioner has sufficient means and source of income of her own to maintain herself. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Maintenance Case. 7. During course of enquiry before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were got marked, on behalf of the petitioners, and R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B16 were got marked on behalf of the respondent. 8. The trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 04.02.2020, allowed the Maintenance Case in part, awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3 (daughters) from the date of application and holding that 1st petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. Challenging the same, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Case No.342 of 2020, and the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Case No.533 of 2021, before this Court. 9. Heard both the counsel and perused the record. 10. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are improper, illegal or incorrect or admissible evidence was overlooked or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the order under revision. 11. Marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent on 17.04.2008 is not in dispute. Ex.A1 is bunch of their marriage photos. Admittedly, petitioners 2 and 3 are their daughters. Exs.A4 and A.5 are their birth certificates. 11. Marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent on 17.04.2008 is not in dispute. Ex.A1 is bunch of their marriage photos. Admittedly, petitioners 2 and 3 are their daughters. Exs.A4 and A.5 are their birth certificates. Petitioners have been residing separately from the respondent since 2014 in the house of parents of 1st petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the respondent obtained divorce from 1st petitioner, and 1st petitioner filed O.P.No.868 of 2017 against the respondent seeking declaration that the Divorce Certificate dated 18.01.2016 issued by the A.P. State Waqf Board, Hyderabad as null and void and not binding on her. 12. In order to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, 1st petitioner has to establish that she is willfully neglected by her husband and that she has no means of her own to maintain herself and her husband has sufficient means to maintain her. 13. It is the specific case of the respondent that 1st petitioner is doing tailoring and embroidery work and getting income of Rs.25,000/- per month and has sufficient means and source of income to maintain herself. To substantiate the same, he examined himself as R.W.1 and deposed the same. The said portion of evidence of R.W.1 is not controverted in cross-examination. Further more, 1st petitioner, examined as P.W.1, did not state in her examination-in-chief that she is unable to maintain herself and her children and she has no source of income and is not doing any work. So also, her mother, who is examined as P.W.2, also did not state anywhere in her evidence in examination-in-chief that 1st petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself and she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, from the uncontroverted evidence of R.W.1, it can be safely held that 1st petitioner is getting income of Rs.25,000/- per month from tailoring and embroidery work, and she is able to maintain herself. Further, 1st petitioner, as P.W.1, admitted in her cross-examination that her husband never neglected her and refused to maintain her. She added that her husband looked after her well. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence placed on record, in right perspective, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent never neglected to maintain the petitioners and there is no infirmity in the said finding so as to call for interference by this Court. 14. She added that her husband looked after her well. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence placed on record, in right perspective, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent never neglected to maintain the petitioners and there is no infirmity in the said finding so as to call for interference by this Court. 14. As regards petitioners 2 and 3, they are minor daughters of respondent and they are pursuing their studies. Respondent, being father, is bound to maintain them. 15. As regards income of the respondent, the respondent had taken a defence that he resigned his job at Oman and joined in Jonnalagadda Company at Vijayawada and is drawing Rs.12,000/- per month as salary. To substantiate the same, he filed Exs.B15 and B16, which are service certificate dated 16.09.2018 issued by Sallan Industrial Investment LLC stating that the respondent resigned from his previous job and relieved on 17.09.2018 and appointment letter dated 15.12.2018 issued by the Jonnalagadda Company. Admittedly, the said aspect is not found place in the pleadings of respondent. The same has been stated for the first time in his oral testimony in the examination-in-chief. Further, the authority, who issued Ex.B16, has not been examined to substantiate the same. Therefore, the trial Court has not rightly placed reliance on the said documents and rightly disbelieved the said contention of the respondent. 16. Further, it is also not the case of respondent that he is paying the school fee and admission of his minor children and looking after them. He admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know whether his children are studying or not; that he did not enquire about studies of his children. He admitted that in India, children require thousands of rupees towards school fee and that he has to provide good education to his children as per his capacity. More over, as per the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.1, petitioners 2 and 3 were studying in School by paying Rs.35,000/- and Rs.45,000/- and spending amounts for purchase of books, dress, etc. besides paying transport charges. 17. The trial Court rightly awarded the maintenance amount to petitioners 2 and 3 and there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. None of the findings is shown as illegal, improper, incorrect or not based on record. besides paying transport charges. 17. The trial Court rightly awarded the maintenance amount to petitioners 2 and 3 and there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. None of the findings is shown as illegal, improper, incorrect or not based on record. Since the cost of living has gone up and considering the present day educational and other expenses, even the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to each of them is meager. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court. 18. In view of the same, the Criminal Revision. Cases are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Revision Cases, shall stand closed.