HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.173 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam, in Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2000. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows: i) The petitioner herein filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli, against the 1st respondent herein, alleging that her marriage with the 1st respondent was performed at Marlapadu Village, Vamsoor Mandal, Khammam District, in the year 1991. At the time of marriage, her father gave Rs.80,000/- towards pasupukumkuma and Rs.5,000/- towards paraphernalia to her. Thereafter, the 1st respondent took away the said amounts from her and spent the amounts for luxurious. During their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child. Later, the 1st respondent started demanding her to bring money from her parents. Finally, in the year 1996, the respondent beat her and necked out her from the matrimonial home after snatching away her gold ornaments. Since then she has been residing in her parents’ house along with her son. She has no source of income for her livelihood and her parents are unable to maintain her and her son. Therefore, she filed the maintenance case seeking maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. ii) The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and the 1st respondent examined himself as R.W.1. After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance, and accordingly, by an order dated 14.03.2000, awarded maintenance of Rs.300/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of petition till the date of order and thereafter at Rs.400/- p.m. iii) Questioning the correctness and legality of the said order, the 1st respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam, and the learned Sessions Judge, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner has neither mentioned in the maintenance case nor stated in her evidence as P.W.1 that she is unable to maintain herself, by an order dated 30.10.2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the revisional Court totally ignored the evidence of P.W.1 and erred in holding that the petitioner has neither mentioned in the maintenance case nor stated in her evidence as P.W.1 that she is unable to maintain herself. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a decision in Mst. Ansuiya Bai Vs. Nawaslal[1]. 5. In Mst. Ansuiya Bai’s case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is held that absence of words “unable to maintain herself” in the maintenance case is not fatal and assertion by wife that she is not doing anything is sufficient to attract Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “Though the wife-applicant has not mentioned the wordings “unable to maintain herself” it will not debar her from claiming maintenance. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a strict rule of pleadings does not apply. The assertion of the wife that she is not doing anything is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The omission to state about “unable to maintain herself” is not fatal. It is only a technical irregularity.” The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand, inasmuch as, it is specifically averred in the maintenance case that the petitioner has no source of income for her livelihood and both the petitioner and her son are living on the mercy of her parents and her parents are unable to maintain them. 6. It is not as though in every maintenance case, the wife shall specifically state that she is unable to maintain herself. The very filing of maintenance case itself speaks that she is unable to maintain herself and from that itself, the Court can infer that she is unable to maintain herself. Mere absence of the specific statement that wife is unable to maintain herself, it is not proper for the Courts to reject the maintenance. In my considered view, the finding of the revisional Court is nothing but perverse. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned in this revision is set aside and the 1st respondent is hereby directed to pay the maintenance to the petitioner as ordered by the trial Court. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 23rd July, 2010 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (b/o) cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.173 of 2003 (Allowed) 23rd July, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.173 of 2003 Date:23.07.2010 Between: Neredla Sirisha … Petitioner and Naredla Sura Reddy and another … Respondents [1] 1991 CRI.L.J.2959