ORDER : 1. Assailing the order dated 25.04.2016 in M.C. No. 15 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli, the petitioner/respondent/ husband filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file the original petition as pleaded by the respondents/wife and son are that: (i) The marriage of 1st respondent and revision petitioner was solemnized on 19.08.2010at Kshatriya Kalyana Mandapam, Vizianagaram as per Hindu caste customs and rites. On the demand, the parents of the 1st respondent presented an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry, four tulas of gold by way of ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- worth of household articles. The marriage was consummated. The petitioner/husband suspected her fidelity and during her 4th month pregnancy, he got her aborted stating that he was not responsible for her pregnancy, due to which she suffered with mental agony. He used to behave in a sadistic manner and harassed her both physically and mentally. On 13.12.2011, she gave birth to 2nd respondent. Even then the petitioner did not change his attitude. The petitioner as well his parents used to beat her with a demand of divorce, if she failed to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and to execute two acres of land in his favour by her parents. Then the petitioner necked out her from the matrimonial house and threatened with dire consequences. A case under Section 498(A) of IPC was registered vide Cr. No. 94 of 2014 against the petitioner and his family members on the report of 1st respondent. (ii) Petitioner as Inspector of Police, Urban Visakhapatnam (Intelligence) getting monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- besides having both movable and immovable properties at Narasannapeta also having own house worth of Rs.60,00,000/-. He always neglected to maintain her; she has no source of income; unable to maintain herself and 2nd respondent. Thereby, the petitioner/husband is bound to maintain her and their son by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as M.C. No. 15 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli. 4. Thereby, the petitioner/husband is bound to maintain her and their son by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as M.C. No. 15 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli. 4. The petitioner/husband filed counter and denied the allegations made by the 1st respondent/wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that: (i) The marriage expenses were shared jointly as per their agreement. The 1st respondent is very adamant and she never adjusted with him. She used to pick up quarrels with him and also threaten that she would implicate him and his family members in false cases. She used to insist him to put up separate residence from his parents and caused mental harassment. She used to talk over phone with somebody for hours together. After birth of 2nd respondent, even he requested her to join with him, she refused. Even he obliged her demand, she never change her attitude. On 28.07.2012, she went to parental house with all her belongings including gold articles and did not return. He came to know that she joined in B.Ed. course and doing part time job. Then her family members came to his house and bet him indiscriminately and foisted a false case against him. She herself withdrawn from his conjugal society without any valid reason. (ii) The 1st respondent working as faculty and getting considerable amount besides having lands at Kothakota Village of Srikakulam District and Cheepurupalli and getting sufficient income of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum and thus she is able to maintain herself. Thereby, prays to dismiss the petition. 5. After full-fledged enquiry, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli, vide order dated 25.04.2016, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.8,000/- to the 2nd respondent/son from the date of filing of the petition i.e. on 28.08.2014 payable on or before 10th of every calendar month by the revision petitioner/husband. The revision petitioner also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance within six months from the date of order besides paying regular maintenance, thus, partly allowed the petition with costs of Rs.1,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred present criminal revision case. 7. The revision petitioner also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance within six months from the date of order besides paying regular maintenance, thus, partly allowed the petition with costs of Rs.1,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred present criminal revision case. 7. Heard Sri R. Sai Sampath, learned counsel representing Sri M. Surya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Miss S.Manaswi, leaned counsel representing Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court?” 9. Sri R. Sai Sampath, learned counsel representing Sri M. Surya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the 1st respondent on her own left the company of the petitioner and she is not willing to join with him; that the old aged parents of the petitioner depending on him and residing in a rented house; that as per Ex.R.7, the petitioner is having car loan, which was not considered by the Trial Court while granting maintenance; that the 1st respondent is a graduate, working as faculty and getting considerable amount of salary; that the Trial Court failed to consider the material placed on record in proper perspective and granted monthly maintenance in excessive, thereby, prays to consider the present revision. 10. As against the same, S. Manaswi, leaned counsel representing Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/wife and son submits that the petitioner is having sufficient income being Inspector of Police and bound to maintain them, who are not having any source of income; that due to unbearable harassment made by the petitioner only, the 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 498(A) of IPC against the petitioner and residing at her paternal home; that the Trial Court after considering the material on record rightly granted maintenance to them and there are no valid ground urged by the petitioner to meddle with the well-articulated order of the Trial Court, thereby, prays to dismiss the revision. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties as spouses, birth of 2nd respondent. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties as spouses, birth of 2nd respondent. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner as well 1st respondent residing separately and she has been residing at her parental home. Furthermore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not prefer any appeal against the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 12. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the 1st respondent herself deserted him without any reasonable cause and thereby, she is not entitled to get any maintenance, which is not considered by the trial Court. 13. To prove her case, the 1st respondent got examined herself before the trial Court as PW-1 and also her father as PW-2. They reiterated the pleadings in their testimonies. The testimony of PW-2 is fully corroborated to the testimony of PW-1. Except bare suggestions, nothing incriminating was elicited to disbelieve their testimony regarding alleged harassment made by the petitioner and his family members. Even the petitioner/husband examined himself before the Trial Court as R.W.1 by reiterating his counter averments, admitted during cross examination that the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights, vide H.M.O.P. No. 288 of 2014, was withdrawn by him due to filing of 498-A case. But he did not plead the said fact in his counter and in contra stated that the 1st respondent/wife is not willing to join with him. More so, during cross examination when he asked that whether he is ready to take her back, he bluntly refused. The above all facts go to show that he 1st respondent was deserted by the revision petitioner and he has no intention to take her back to the matrimonial life. Thereby, the plea of willful desertion of 1st respondent/wife has no legs to stand. 14. The trial Court after elaborate consideration and discussion on this point, arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner/husband failed to prove that PW-1 herself left his company, deserted him and in fact the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are able to prove that they were completely and intentionally neglected by the revision petitioner and also refused by him for his company, which does not require any interference by this Court in view of the above discussion. 15. 1 and 2 are able to prove that they were completely and intentionally neglected by the revision petitioner and also refused by him for his company, which does not require any interference by this Court in view of the above discussion. 15. Coming to the quantum of maintenance payable by the revision petitioner, it is settled that the revision petitioner being husband and father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and able-bodied person bound to maintain them. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is working as Inspector of Police. Albeit, it is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent/wife being post graduate and studied up to M.Sc., B. Ed and working as teacher is able to maintain herself. She admitted during cross examination that she is doing B. Ed course after her marriage, but she denied that she is working as teacher anywhere. The revision petitioner also failed to prove her employment by placing any material on record. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court after elaborate consideration of the matter rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/wife and son entitled for maintenance from the revision petitioner/husband and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the 2nd respondent/son, however, in view of the above material facts, it is just and reasonable that, the monthly maintenance granted to the 1st respondent/wife is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.12,000/-. 17. Having regard to the above discussion, the revision petitioner is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.8,000/- to the 2nd respondent/son from the date of petition i.e. on 28.08.2024 and he further directed to pay the arrears of maintenance within two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli is directed to take necessary steps for compliance of above order. Concerned to the costs ordered, as stated supra, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 18. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 19. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.