HON’BLE SRI JUSICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2705 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is the husband. The wife filed a maintenance Case i.e. M.C.2 of 2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur (trial Court) claiming a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance on the plea that the husband neglected her. The trial Court after giving opportunity to both sides allowed that maintenance case by its order dated 26.06.2009 granting the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the petition. 2. The husband filed a revision i.e. Crl.R.P.No.49 of 2009 questioning that order of the trial Court. The III Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa at Rajampet (revisional Court) considered that revision and by his order dated 08.01.2010 dismissed that revision. The husband filed the present petition to quash that order on the ground that both the trial Court and the revisional court did not consider the matter properly and committed a grave error in upholding the claim of the wife. 3. The record shows that there is no dispute between the parties about the relationship between them. The plea of the wife is that the marriage took place on 06.11.2003 and thereafter the husband who is a clerk in the Railways was working at Vijayawada and she was forced to stay with her mother-in-law at Kadapa and the husband used to come to Kadapa and she also became pregnant but that pregnancy was got aborted by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Her further plea is that throughout her stay at Kadapa she was subjected to cruelty both by her husband and also the mother-in-law and was denied even basic necessities and that forced her to stay with her parents. The wife also pleaded that the husband himself filed a divorce i.e. O.P.No.17 of 2005 in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Rajampet though she was willing to stay with him and the said divorce O.P was also dismissed after a full trial by the said Court vindicating her stand. 4. With the above pleas, the wife claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance on the ground that she needs that amount and that the husband was earning Rs.17,000/- per month from his job and he was in a position to pay her that sum towards maintenance. The stand of the husband is that the wife herself deserted him and he got job under a compassionate appointment scheme and he had to maintain his widowed mother and also his brother and sister-in-law and therefore the wife is not entitled to any separate maintenance and the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month claimed by her is also excessive. Before the trial Court the wife in support of her case gave evidence as P.W.1 and filed four (4) documents i.e Exs.P.1 to P.4. On the other hand the husband in support of his case himself gave evidence as R.W.1 and he also examined R.W.2 Gorla Nga Subbaiah who is said to be an elder to show that the wife deserted him but though promised to return she did not return back to his society. 5. The trial Court relied upon the dismissal of the divorce O.P filed by the husband and also the evidence of the wife herself to conclude that the wife was not at fault and that she did not desert the husband. It gave convincing reasons in coming to that conclusion and held that the husband was at fault and he neglected the wife. Even the learned District Judge went into the evidence elaborately and concluded that the wife’s version that the husband stayed at Vijayawada and neglected her without taking her into his society though she was willing. A perusal of the trial court order and the order of the revisional court would show that these findings are based on evidence. The learned counsel for the husband made an attempt to show that the reasons given by both the Courts on the above aspect are erroneous. It may be noted that both the Courts appreciated the evidence especially the learned District Judge though the matter was before him in a revision and concluded in favour of the wife. There is no compelling ground to disagree with their conclusion on this aspect. 6. Then coming to the quantum of maintenance, the trial Court found that the gross salary of the husband is Rs.23,812/- and after deductions the husband was in receipt of Rs.16,812/- and the salary received through bank by him is Rs.9,812/-. However the learned District Judge after examining the matter concluded that the monthly salary of the husband should be Rs.14,000/- per month. It was further held by both the Courts that the mother-in-law was in receipt of pension and that the brother and sister of the husband also became majors. Nothing is also brought to my notice here that the husband has to spend any amount on the education of his brother and sister. In these circumstances the monthly maintenance fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month can be said to be reasonable as the husband has no other obligations. 7. The learned counsel for the husband then pointed out that the trial Court granted the maintenance from the date of the petition without recording any reasons and that was also confirmed by the revisional Court without giving any reasons again and therefore that portion of the order should be set aside and the maintenance should be granted from the date of the order. It is true that Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C says that maintenance granted shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered by the Court from the date of the application for maintenance. It is also true that the trial Court or the revisional Court did not record any reasons for granting maintenance from the date of the petition. It is true when maintenance is granted from the date of the petition and having regard to the above provision which says that maintenance is usually payable from the date of the order, the Court should record reasons by pointing out the circumstances which entitle her to maintenance from the date of the petition. 8. It should however be noted that it is the bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife and children if they have no other source of income. It should be noted that this is a revision and the jurisdiction of this court is discretionary. In the circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that husband did not take the wife with him to his place of posting it follows that this court should not interfere in the matter regarding the period from which maintenance is granted. 9. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR 12th July, 2011 Vjl /CVRK