Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 220 (AP)

Jeldi Priyadarsini v. Jeldi Ramesh

2023-01-27

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), who are the petitioners in M.C.No.16 of 2008, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., on the file of Judge, Family Court, Guntur, questioning the order, dated 30.10.2008, whereunder the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, declined to grant maintenance to the first petitioner, but, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the second petitioner payable by the respondent. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners in M.C.No.16 of 2008, filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., according to the averments in the petition, in brief, is as follows: (i) The marriage of the first petitioner and respondent was performed on 18.06.2005. At that time, the parents of the first petitioner gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and his parents in the presence of elders viz., Seelam Daniel, Banerjee and the maternal uncle of the first petitioner by name Jeldi Rajamohan. The parents also presented 3 sovereigns of bracelet and a gold ring weighting 1 sovereign to the respondent. They also presented household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent. They also presented gold ornaments weighing about 20 sovereigns to the first petitioner. Thereafter, the first petitioner joined with the respondent at their house situated at 3rd lane, Pattabhipuram, Guntur. Respondent is working as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad. Parents of the respondent and the respondent did not agree to setup the family at Hyderabad, but kept the first petitioner at the parental house of the respondent at Guntur. Respondent used to visit Guntur once in a fortnight. During the stay of the first petitioner at Guntur, her inlaws and the elder brother of the respondent used to harass and abuse her in a filthy language by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to send the respondent to America. When the first petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the respondent, he instead of controlling his parents and brother, supported them and demanded the first petitioner to comply the said demand. When the first petitioner brought the said fact to the notice of the respondent, he instead of controlling his parents and brother, supported them and demanded the first petitioner to comply the said demand. When the said demand was brought to the notice of the parents of the first petitioner with the help of elders and well-wishers, they pacified the issue and instead of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, they gave a sum of Rs.75,000/- for purchasing Computer. Elders advised the respondent to setup the family at Hyderabad. Hence, the respondent took a house at Flat No.206, Kiranmayi Apartments, Motinagar, Hyderabad and setup the family in October, 2005. The first petitioner joined there. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent. He continued to harass the first petitioner mentally and physically by demanding to bring additional dowry. The first petitioner became pregnant out of wedlock. Even then, the respondent and his family members treated the first petitioner with cruelty. They necked out her from the matrimonial home forcing her to take shelter in her parental house. On 18.03.2006, the first petitioner gave birth to the second petitioner. It was informed to the respondent and his parents. A function was arranged on 07.04.2006. Again the respondent and his family members reiterated their demand for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the parents of the first petitioner expressed their inability to pay such amount, the respondent and his parents declared that unless additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid, they would not allow the petitioners to come and join. Saying so, they left. Subsequent mediations held proved to be futile. Having no other go, the first petitioner presented a report on 03.08.2006 to the Arundelpet Police Station against the respondent, his father, brother and mother, which is subject matter in Crime No.194 of 2006 under Section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. (ii) The respondent is working as a Software Engineer in B2B Technological Company, Somajiguda, Secunderabad and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Having sufficient means, he neglected to provide any maintenance to the petitioners. The petitioners are at the mercy of the parents of the first petitioner. Though, the first petitioner is a Graduate, she is not accustomed to do any work. The respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. The petitioners require a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month each towards their maintenance. Hence, the petition. 4. The petitioners are at the mercy of the parents of the first petitioner. Though, the first petitioner is a Graduate, she is not accustomed to do any work. The respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. The petitioners require a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month each towards their maintenance. Hence, the petition. 4. The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and the contention of the respondent, in brief, is that after the marriage i.e., from 18.06.2005 to 30.06.2005 both the first petitioner and respondent lived together with the parents of the first petitioner at Guntur. During his stay at Guntur at the parents of the petitioner’s house, she and her parents started insisting and forcing the respondent to stay with them and also insisting to search a job at Guntur only. The respondent did not accept the demand of the first petitioner and her parents to live with them. The first petitioner never agreed to come and reside with the respondent at his parents’ house despite repeated demands and she never stepped into the house of respondent from the date of marriage, as such, respondent and first petitioner were residing separately with their respective parents since 01.07.2005. On 01.07.2005 the respondent and his parents made several representations to the first petitioner to come and join with the society of the respondent. On 25.09.2005 he went to the first petitioner and requested her to come and join with him. Father of the first petitioner and her brother abused him in filthy language and beaten him mercilessly without any reason or cause stating that the first petitioner would not come and live with the respondent. The respondent efforts proved to be futile. On 02.10.2005 a mediation was held before the elders of both where the first petitioner and her father promised with the respondent that they would not interfere and cause any inconvenience with matrimonial life of the respondent. 5. On 01.07.2005 the respondent came to Hyderabad and joined in service as a Software Engineer and since then he was residing at Hyderabad. The respondent made repeated requests to the first petitioner, as such, on 07.10.2005 she joined with the respondent at Hyderabad. She never participated in her conjugal duties during the stay period at Hyderabad. She again insisted him to leave job and to come to Guntur to search for a job. The respondent made repeated requests to the first petitioner, as such, on 07.10.2005 she joined with the respondent at Hyderabad. She never participated in her conjugal duties during the stay period at Hyderabad. She again insisted him to leave job and to come to Guntur to search for a job. He refused to comply the said demands. Then, she started suspecting the character of respondent. Ultimately, she left the house of the respondent on 23.12.2005 at Hyderabad. Since then, she is residing in her parents’ house at Guntur. Though the respondent intimated to the parents of the first petitioner about her attitude, they did not care to look into the issue. The first petitioner subjected him to insult on many occasions in public. She never looked after him with love and affection. 6. The father-in-law of the respondent is a Teacher and drawing a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as pension. His mother-in-law is Headmistress with aided post and drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month. She is running her own school where she is a Headmistress. Both in-laws have got immovable property also worth of 30 to 40 lakhs at Guntur. The first petitioner owns a house in Door No.7-2-231/150, situated at Guntur and she has got properties in and around Guntur. So, she has got means to maintain herself and child. The respondent joined in service as a Software Engineer very recently in a small private company and getting a meager salary, which is not sufficient. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 7. During the course of enquiry before the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, the petitioners examined P.W.1, who is the first petitioner and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined. Further Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1 to B.3 also marked on behalf of respective parties. 8. The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, by virtue of an order, dated 30.10.2008, which is the impugned order, declined to grant any maintenance to the first petitioner by giving finding that she deserted the respondent, but ordered the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner every month towards maintenance. Felt aggrieved of the same, the petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Case challenging the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur in declining to grant order of maintenance to the first petitioner and further in grating maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month as against the original prayer of Rs.3,000/- per month to the second petitioner. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order, dated 30.10.2008 in M.C.No.16 of 2008 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with such an order? Point:- 10. P.W.1 before the trial Court is no other than the first petitioner and her evidence in substance is that her marriage with the respondent took place on 18.06.2005 at Guntur. She spoken about the presentation of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 3 sovereigns of bracelet, one sovereign of gold ring and further presentation of household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- and that she joined with the respondent and lived at Pattabhipuram and respondent used to work as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and he used to visit every Saturday. The respondent and his parents abused and beaten her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to send the respondent to America. The respondent also demanded for the same. Her parents expressed their inability to do so. Ultimately, they provided a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent. On the advice of the elders, the respondent took her to Hyderabad and they stayed there. Even then, he harassed her in drunken state. He used to go by 7-00 A.M. and returned by 11-00 P.M. in drunken state. He harassed her mentally stating that he would go for second marriage. Parents of the respondent also came to Hyderabad and harassed her for additional dowry. So, she filed a criminal case which is pending. The respondent is getting a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as a Software Engineer. This is the substance of evidence of P.W.1 in chief examination. 11. P.W.2 is father of the first petitioner and he deposed in tune with the pleadings of the first petitioner and in support of the evidence of P.W.1. 12. P.W.3-S. Danial Benarji deposed in substance that he acted as an elder to the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent. 11. P.W.2 is father of the first petitioner and he deposed in tune with the pleadings of the first petitioner and in support of the evidence of P.W.1. 12. P.W.3-S. Danial Benarji deposed in substance that he acted as an elder to the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent. At the time of marriage, parents of the first petitioner gave dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and his parents. They also gave household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- according to the list of articles given by the respondent and his father. The marriage took place on 18.06.2005. The first petitioner joined with respondent. When he went to the house of respondent to see the first petitioner, he asked the first petitioner about her wellbeing, for which she replied that respondent and his parents are harassing for additional dowry. Later, respondent took the first petitioner to Hyderabad. The parents of the first petitioner presented Rs.75,000/- towards additional dowry. There was also a written agreement executed by both of them to that effect. Later, he came to know that the first petitioner gave birth to the second petitioner. 13. R.W.1 is no other than the respondent and he deposed in his chief examination and according to the counter and also by deposing additional facts. 14. R.W.2 was examined by the respondent to support his case that he was attacked by the relatives of the respondent. 15. Apart from this, as evident from the judgment of the trial Court, the parties brought in evidence Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1, B.2 and B.3. Ex.A.1 is the marriage invitation card and photograph. Ex.C.1 is the family resolution in Telugu with English translation. Ex.B.1 is the similar document. Ex.B.2 is relieving order. Ex.B.3 is rental deed in Telugu with English translation. 16. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the first petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and in detail she spoken about the true facts before the trial Court and she further examined P.W.2, the father of first petitioner and P.W.3, the mediator and their evidence is consistent. Further the parties also brought in evidence Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1 to B.3, but, the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, declined to grant maintenance to the first petitioner basing on surmises and conjectures. Further the parties also brought in evidence Exs.A.1, C.1, B.1 to B.3, but, the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, declined to grant maintenance to the first petitioner basing on surmises and conjectures. The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, unnecessarily gave findings about Section 498-A of I.P.C. case and Domestic Violence Case, etc., which is perverse. The trial Court gave adverse findings without any basis. The trial Court discussed the irrelevant issues in a perverse manner and made unwarranted comments. Ex.B.3 reveals that the first petitioner was getting monthly rentals of Rs.500/- alone, but the findings given by the trial Court as if she was receiving Rs.5,000/- per month towards rentals is baseless. The trial Court erroneously recorded the rentals as that of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.500/- and erroneously declined to grant maintenance to the first petitioner. The granting meager amount of Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner is unsustainable, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that the maintenance is liable to be awarded to the first petitioner and the maintenance was that grated to the second petitioner is liable to be modified. 17. Sri K. Viswanatham, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the first respondent Smt. Ratna Prabha, would seek to support the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, on the ground that the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, looked into various circumstances, pleadings and the nature of evidence available. He would contend that the basis for the petitioners to file a maintenance case is that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners as the first petitioner did not comply the demand of additional dowry. There is no dispute about Ex.C.1 and B.1 that was executed in the month of October, 2005 in which there was no whisper about the so-called demand of dowry, etc. So, the foundation to file maintenance case was very weak and the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, rightly looked into the facts and circumstances and rightly negatived the claim of the first petitioner and rightly granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. 18. So, the foundation to file maintenance case was very weak and the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, rightly looked into the facts and circumstances and rightly negatived the claim of the first petitioner and rightly granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. 18. Admittedly, a look at the pleadings in M.C.No.16 of 2008 reveals that the contention of the petitioners in substance is that though the respondent is working as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad, but after the marriage, he refused to setup the family at Hyderabad and kept the first petitioner at his parental house where she was subjected to harassment to pay additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and respondent instead of controlling his parents, supported their demands and demanded the first petitioner to pay the dowry and ultimately in October, 2005 setup the family at Hyderabad and again started to demand additional dowry and after she became pregnant, necked out her and she joined with her parents where she gave birth to a child on 18.03.2006 and even on 07.04.2006 at the function, respondent and his parents reiterated the demands and did not allow the petitioners to take them to their house. This is the substance of allegations. It is flatly denied by the respondent. 19. Now coming to Ex.C.1 it is the so-called family resolution in Telugu with English translation and Ex.B.1 which is the similar document. It is pertinent to refer here the contents thereof. So, Exs.C.1 and B.1 runs to the effect that the marriage decision between the first petitioner and the respondent was taken on 28.05.2005 and marriage was performed on 18.06.2005 duly and after that, small differences cropped up, as such, elders from both sides pacified the issues and resolved to see that they would live happily and they would resolve the disputes in the presence of elders and they would not cause any harm against each other. So, these documents were said to be executed in the month of October, 2005. Admittedly, the first petitioner did not plead about the existence of these documents in her pleadings. Ultimately, these documents are brought in evidence during the course of trial. So, there is nothing in Exs.C.1 and B.1 stating that the differences arose between the parties on account of a demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. 20. Admittedly, the first petitioner did not plead about the existence of these documents in her pleadings. Ultimately, these documents are brought in evidence during the course of trial. So, there is nothing in Exs.C.1 and B.1 stating that the differences arose between the parties on account of a demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. 20. So, it is very clear that by October, 2005, when the first petitioner, even according to her, joined with the respondent at Hyderabad, there remains nothing in Exs.C.1 and B.1 that respondent and his parents were demanding the first petitioner to bring additional dowry. The basis for the whole dispute appears to be according to the first petitioner was the so-called demand by the respondent and his parents to bring additional dowry. But, the crucial document i.e., Exs.C.1 and B.1 did not reveal anything about this. When P.W.1 was suggested during the cross examination that her parents did not provide any dowry, she denied it. During the cross examination of P.W.2, the father of P.W.1, stated that he drawn a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the bank account one month prior to the marriage for the purpose of dowry and shown the transaction in his income tax returns. There is no dispute that such documents are not at all filed before the trial Court. Ultimately, he made an admission that he has no document to show that he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent towards dowry. Curiously, the evidence of P.W.2 in cross examination is that cash was given in reception hall in the Church. He deposed in cross examination that 10 bundles of 500 rupee notes were handed over to the respondent and his parents at the time of marriage. But, according to P.W.2, he withdrawn the amount one month prior to the marriage. However, the testimony of P.W.2 that he withdrawn the amount from the bank, etc., is not borne out by any record. Leave apart, the answers made by P.Ws.1 to 3 during the cross examination, but, the crucial documents like Exs.C.1 and B.1 do not reflect anything that the respondent received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for dowry. However, the testimony of P.W.2 that he withdrawn the amount from the bank, etc., is not borne out by any record. Leave apart, the answers made by P.Ws.1 to 3 during the cross examination, but, the crucial documents like Exs.C.1 and B.1 do not reflect anything that the respondent received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for dowry. It is also rather improbable to assume that when the first petitioner was asked to reside in the parental house of the respondent without taking the first petitioner to Hyderabad, though the respondent was working there as a Software Engineer, household articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- could be presented to the respondent. So, the material allegations made by the first petitioner in the maintenance case were not supported with any probable circumstances or reasonable evidence before the trial Court. The existence of Exs.C.1 and B.1 were not at all in dispute and they were said to be brought into existence in the month of October, 2005. So, to this extent, Exs.C.1 and B.1 would not support the case of the petitioners. 21. There is no dispute according to both parties that the respondent setup the family at Hyderabad in the month of October, 2005 and there is no dispute that the first petitioner conceived pregnancy. During the cross examination, P.W.1 denied that on 23.12.2005 she left the house of the respondent without informing him. Witness volunteers that when the respondent in a drunken stage tried to kill her, on 23.12.2005 she left the house and her parents came there and took her to Guntur. She denied that she harassed the respondent demanding him to secure a job at Guntur. She admitted that after the respondent sent a divorce notice to her, she filed a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the respondent and his family members. She received notice in the month of July, 2006 and she filed a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. in the month of August, 2006. 22. It is to be noticed that there is no dispute that as on the date of 23.12.2005, the first petitioner was carrying pregnancy. She received notice in the month of July, 2006 and she filed a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. in the month of August, 2006. 22. It is to be noticed that there is no dispute that as on the date of 23.12.2005, the first petitioner was carrying pregnancy. According to her, the respondent did not take her to Hyderabad immediately after marriage and kept her at Guntur till the end of September, 2005 and it could only be in October, 2005 that too after getting executed certain documents such as Exs.C.1 and B.1, she was taken to Hyderabad. She had knowledge that there was an undertaking in both documents that none of the parties would cause harm against each other. If that be the case, if really she was subjected to physical harassment and especially when the respondent allegedly tried to kill her in a drunken state on 23.12.2005, she would not have kept quiet without lodging any report with police. So, her evidence that on 23.12.2005 she left the house when her parents came there and took her after the respondent made an attempt to kill her cannot stands to any reason. She admitted that during her stay with respondent, she never filed any criminal case against him. 23. Apart from this, certain answers spoken by P.W.1 during the cross examination goes to show that at the time of delivery, the respondent was present. The date of delivery was 18.03.2006 after her parents allegedly took her to Guntur from Hyderabad when the respondent made an attempt to kill her on 23.12.2005. She further admitted that even after delivery, respondent also visited her house. So, all these go to show that the respondent used to visit the petitioner even after she gave birth to the second petitioner. Now, the fact remained is that it is quite natural for a woman like P.W.1 to go to her parental house for the purpose of delivery. Even after delivery, respondent was visiting her. If really there was any dowry harassment as alleged by P.Ws.1 to 3, there would not have been any occasion where the parties were missing to make a mention about it in Exs.C.1 and B.1. 24. Even after delivery, respondent was visiting her. If really there was any dowry harassment as alleged by P.Ws.1 to 3, there would not have been any occasion where the parties were missing to make a mention about it in Exs.C.1 and B.1. 24. Apart from this, it is quietly clear that the first petitioner chosen to lodge a report under Section 498-A of IPC only after the respondent sent a legal notice and filing a matrimonial O.P. In my considered view, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would not prove that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. 25. Coming to the evidence of R.W.1 apart from adverting to the contents of counter, he deposed certain facts which are not borne out by the counter and the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, opined that there need not be anything in detail about the case of the respondent. This Court is of the considered view that in a case of this nature, it is for the first petitioner to establish the fact that the respondent neglected to maintain her in spite of fact that he has means and that the first petitioner was unable to maintain herself. The additional facts deposed by R.W.1 in his evidence is such that the first petitioner had no intention initially to conceive pregnancy, etc. In my considered view, those are not at all coming in the way of the Court to decide this Criminal Revision Case. Irrespective of the merits on the improvements made by the respondent in his evidence as R.W.1 which were not borne out by the counter, but the fact remained is that the evidence on record goes to show that the first petitioner miserably failed to show any justifiable circumstances to reside separately. The basis for the first petitioner to claim maintenance is the disputes on account of the so-called demands made by the respondent and his family members for additional dowry and the first petitioner miserably failed to substantiate the same. 26. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the first petitioner failed to prove that the respondent neglected to maintain her and that she had any justifiable reason to live separately at her parental house by leaving the respondent at Hyderabad. In my considered view, the case of the first petitioner cannot stands to the test of scrutiny. 27. In my considered view, the case of the first petitioner cannot stands to the test of scrutiny. 27. It is a fact that the contention of the respondent is that the first petitioner had a house in her name and Ex.B.3 is the rental agreement which reveals that she is getting monthly rental of Rs.500/-. Admittedly, the said finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, is by overlooking the contents of Ex.B.3, which could only mean that the rental was Rs.500/- per month. It is to be noticed that it is not as though the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, dismissed the maintenance case on the ground that the first petitioner is having means to maintain herself. On the other hand, the findings against the first petitioner was also that she deserted the respondent. As pointed out one of the essential ingredients to succeed in a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is the neglect made by the husband towards wife. Here, the first petitioner failed to prove the neglect towards the respondent. Hence, merely because, the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, was erroneous insofar as the quantum of rental under Ex.B.3, but it would not support the case of the petitioners to succeed in this Criminal Revision Case. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, rightly appreciated the evidence on record insofar as the first petitioner is concerned as to the neglect attributed against the respondent. 28. Now, there is no dispute that the second petitioner as on the date of filing of the maintenance case was aged about 5 months. The contest of the respondent did not mean that he has taken care to look after the second petitioner well. The evidence on record does not show that he taken in minimum care so as to provide any maintenance to the minor child. So, a legal obligation is cast upon the respondent to maintain the second petitioner, who is no other than his child. There is no dispute that respondent was in the job up to May, 2008. He filed Ex.B.2 to show that he resigned from the job with effect from 19.05.2008. Obviously, he did not explain as to how much amount he was getting while he was in job up to May, 2008. There is no dispute that respondent was in the job up to May, 2008. He filed Ex.B.2 to show that he resigned from the job with effect from 19.05.2008. Obviously, he did not explain as to how much amount he was getting while he was in job up to May, 2008. There is no dispute that the respondent was highly qualified and had considerable experience in the Software filed. So, it cannot be assumed by any stretch of imagination that he was sitting ideal after resigning his job. 29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it can be said that the respondent in spite of his means to maintain the second petitioner, neglected to maintain the second petitioner. It is to be noticed that the petitioners in their petition prayed to award maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to them. As seen from the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the second petitioner. Having regard to the status of the respondent and his obligation to maintain the second petitioner who was a kid and who need constant medical aid, as she was in growing age, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, ought to have granted maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the second petitioner instead of Rs.2,000/- alone. 30. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the finding arrived at by the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, insofar as the first petitioner is concerned is on reasonable basis and order impugned cannot be said to be illegal or irregular or impropriety. However, there are grounds to interfere with the order so as to modify the maintenance granted to the second petitioner as that of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- per month. 31. The point is answered accordingly. 32. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part modifying the order of the maintenance payable by the respondent in favour of second petitioner as that of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- per month and the rest of the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, dated 30.10.2008 in M.C.No.16 of 2008, in all aspects shall stands confirmed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.