JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision Petitioner, who was the respondent in M.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short), challenging the order, dated 12.01.2009, whereunder the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, in maintenance case filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, ordered the Revision Petitioner herein, who is the respondent in maintenance case, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each petitioner. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Court below is as follows: The respondent married the first petitioner on 28.08.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. Second petitioner was born to them on 10.10.2005. The respondent is drunkard and indulged in immoral activities. He demanded Rs.50,000/- by way of additional dowry and he used to beat first petitioner. He used to threaten her to kill. The relatives of respondent also used to beat her. The respondent stopped paying household expenses and when first petitioner demanded money on 10.06.2007, the respondent threatened to kill her. So first petitioner and her daughter came out of the house of respondent. All the efforts by relatives of first petitioner proved futile. The brother and mother of first petitioner are in utter state of poverty. The respondent had lands and house in Malkatipalli village and he is working as Inspector in R & B Department and he gets Rs.12,000/- per month apart from Rs.1,00,000/- from his landed property. Hence, this petition. 4. The averments in the counter are briefly as follows: The respondent's father gave voluntary retirement in 2000 for the benefit of respondent. Respondent has 4 sisters. The respondent was given the job of his father. The petitioner started harassing the respondent to shift his family to Rajampet town. But the respondent did not agree. The petitioner was ill-treating his parents. Finally, the family was shifted to Rajampet. The petitioner is adamant and she used to fight with the respondent. The petitioner is follower of Christianity. The petitioner is quarrel some lady. Without informing him, she used to go to her parents house. The respondent used to give monthly expenditure to petitioner. The petitioner was ill-treating his parents. Finally, the family was shifted to Rajampet. The petitioner is adamant and she used to fight with the respondent. The petitioner is follower of Christianity. The petitioner is quarrel some lady. Without informing him, she used to go to her parents house. The respondent used to give monthly expenditure to petitioner. The petitioner does not want peaceful marital life. She did not allow the relatives of respondent to their house. The respondent made several attempts for reunion of his wife and child. The lands of respondent are D.K.R. lands. He is getting Rs.6,000/- and odd per month. There is no reason for her living separately. He never threatened her to kill. Hence to dismiss the petition. 5. During the course of enquiry before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, on behalf of the petitioners P.W.1 was examined and on behalf the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, allowed the maintenance case directing the respondent therein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful respondent filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now, in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order, dated 12.01.2009 in M.C.No.53 of 2008 suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said order? Point:- 8. Sri R. Arun Kumar, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that the first petitioner in the maintenance case i.e., wife of the Revision Petitioner herein was of a quarrelsome woman, who used to pick up the quarrel with present Revision Petitioner and his parents from the very beginning, as such, she left the company of the Revision Petitioner on her own and in spite of the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 in support of the Revision Petitioner before the Court below, the maintenance case was allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, without proper reasons. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable under law, as such, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable under law, as such, it is liable to be set aside. He would also further submit that the second petitioner in the maintenance case is no other than the baby girl of the Revision Petitioner and the second respondent herein and now she must have reached the age of majority, as such, the order may be modified. 9. The first respondent is a formal party. 10. Though there is service of notices on respondent Nos.2 and 3, none appear. 11. P.W.1 before the Court below was no other than the first petitioner in the maintenance case. She got filed chief examination affidavit adverting the averments in the maintenance case. 12. R.W.1 before the Court below was the Revision Petitioner herein and he put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings before the Court below. 13. He further examined R.W.2 in support of his case, who was said to have conducted a mediation and evidence of R.W.2 is that he attended the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. As he came to know about the behavior of the petitioner, he requested the petitioner to lead happy marital life with the respondent. In two occasions during the panchayat, he advised the petitioner to lead a happy marital life, but the petitioner refused to do so. Hence, they also advised the respondent to put up a separate family away from the parents of the respondent at Rajampet. 14. Evidence of R.W.3 is to the effect that he is living in the down-stair portion. Petitioner and respondent lived in the up-stair portion. He used to observe that the petitioner was a quarrel with some lady. She used to abuse the respondent. She used to leave the company of the respondent. On 12.06.2007 a panchayat was held in Rajampet in the house of the respondent. They admonished the behavior of the petitioner. The elders on behalf of the petitioner promised that they would change her mind and sent her back to the respondent. 15. As seen from the pleadings of the petitioners and the respondent before the Court below, they raised allegations against each other and the allegations and the counter allegations were denied by the parties. 16. There is no dispute about the marriage of the first petitioner with respondent and during wedlock, the second petitioner was born. 15. As seen from the pleadings of the petitioners and the respondent before the Court below, they raised allegations against each other and the allegations and the counter allegations were denied by the parties. 16. There is no dispute about the marriage of the first petitioner with respondent and during wedlock, the second petitioner was born. When the first petitioner in the maintenance case attributed default and neglect against the respondent, he commented in the counter that first petitioner was quarrelsome lady. Even respondent examined R.Ws.2 and 3 to say that first petitioner was a quarrelsome lady, who used to insist the respondent to put up a separate family. Now, the above plea of the respondent is to be decided by virtue of the appreciation of evidence by looking into the probabilities. 17. During the cross examination, P.W.1 stated that respondent was working as Gang Man in R & B, Rajampet at the time of marriage. He was the only son to his parents. Respondent's father after took voluntary retirement, provided job to the respondent. After three months of the marriage, family was shifted to Rajampet. She denied that on her demand respondent shifted the family to Rajampet. She denied that in the panchayat elders advised respondent to shift the family. She denied that she harassed the respondent's parents and that she used to quarrel with the respondent and that she used to leave the house frequently. She denied that she deserted the respondent. 18. According to the evidence of R.W.2, they advised the respondent to set up a separate family away from the parents of the respondent at Rajampet because the petitioner refused to live with the respondent. The evidence of R.W.3 is also similar. Now coming to the cross examination part of R.W.1, he deposed in cross examination that they lived together at Malkativaripalli for three months and then shifted to Rajampet. At present, he is working in Chitwel. As it is nearer, he shifted the family to Rajampet. So, the above admission made by the respondent goes to reveal that as he felt convenient from the place of working, he shifted his family to Rajampet. So, the own admission made by R.W.1 during cross examination belies his contention before P.W.1 that she insisted respondent to shift family to Rajampet. So, the above admission made by the respondent goes to reveal that as he felt convenient from the place of working, he shifted his family to Rajampet. So, the own admission made by R.W.1 during cross examination belies his contention before P.W.1 that she insisted respondent to shift family to Rajampet. So, by virtue of the admission made by R.W.1 during cross examination that he shifted the family to Rajampet only for convenient sake in terms of distance from his place of working, the further evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 is not at all believable. All these go to show that the allegations made by the respondent that petitioner used to insist him to put up a separate family are proved to be false. Though the evidence of P.W.1 is without any corroboration, but the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 is not at all believable for the reasons stated supra. 19. There is no dispute about the mediation that was conducted when the disputes arose between the first petitioner and the respondent, as such, it is quite natural for the elders to advice both parties to live amicably, but the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 that the first petitioner was at fault cannot stands to any reason, as she had no role at all for shifting of the family to Rajampet, in view of the admissions made by R.W.1. The respondent has no probable defence as to how he neglected the second petitioner, who was born out of the wedlock. It is not a case where he taken any steps to get back the petitioners in accordance with law. So, it is clear that there was a justification for the petitioners to live separately in view of the conduct of the respondent. The counter allegations made to deny maintenance to the petitioners are not at all probablised. Having regard to the above, the evidence on record amply proves that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. 20. Coming to the contention of the petitioners that they are unable to maintain themselves, there is no dispute that the second petitioner being a child cannot maintain herself. Apart from this, the respondent did not prove anything that the first petitioner has any sources of income. Nothing is suggested to P.W.1 during cross examination that she has any sources of income. Apart from this, the respondent did not prove anything that the first petitioner has any sources of income. Nothing is suggested to P.W.1 during cross examination that she has any sources of income. So, when the petitioners have no sources of income, there was no effort made by the respondent to provide minimum maintenance to the petitioners. All these go to show that the petitioners were unable to maintain themselves. 21. There is no dispute that the respondent is employee and he is getting considerable income by way of salary every month. The learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, when the petitioners claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to each, fixed the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each petitioner, which is on reasonable basis. The learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, took into consideration of the gross salary and the net salary of the respondent in this regard. 22. Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners in the maintenance case before the Court below were able to prove that the respondent neglected to maintain them, who are unable to maintain themselves in spite of the fact that he has sufficient means to maintain them. Hence, the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, cannot be said to be illegal or irregular. 23. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the maintenance order in respect of the second petitioner is to be modified, as the second petitioner attained majority, this Court while exercising powers of revision cannot pass the said order because as on the date of filing of the petition and order of maintenance, she was a minor which is not in dispute. If the revision petitioner feels that the order is to be modified, the remedies are open to him to approach the Court below, in accordance with law. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the order in any way. 24. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.