THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7600 of 2007 Date of Order:20.01.2011 Between: S.Srinivasa Rao ..Petitioner and Sivakoti Bharati and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7600 of 2007 ORDER :- This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2006, dated 19.09.2007 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajahmundry in dismissing the revision confirming the maintenance awarded in M.C.No.234 of 2004, dated 02.01.2006, passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Respondent/wife and children of the petitioner filed the above maintenance case seeking maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition and for costs of Rs.2,000/-. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties. According to the wife, after giving birth to the children, the husband used to pressurise her to bring additional amounts and jewellery from her parents, otherwise he will neck her out mercilessly and on 14.01.2002 her husband necked out P.W.1 and her children without providing clothes and wearing apparels. On receiving the telephone call, the father of the wife took her and her children to Rajahmundry and kept with them. Hence, she filed the above maintenance case claiming maintenance. Petitioner/husband filed a counter denying the allegations that the parents of his wife entrusting dowry or jewellery; that he necked out his wife and her children from the house. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he is suffering with ill health and having no source of income or means to provide to wife and children. The wife is leading continuous adulterous life with one Ch.Rama Rao along with her children at Visakhapatnam and the wife of the said Ch.Rama Rao filed a case under Section 498A IPC against him. The petitioner filed divorce O.P. before the Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery and desertion, which is pending and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The respondent/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1. The petitioner/husband was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1. The learned Magistrate after considering the said evidence, awarded maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month to each of the petitioners from the date of petition and an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the husband carried the matter in revision before the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the revisional court after reconsidering the entire evidence dismissed the revision confirming the orders of the Magistrate in awarding the maintenance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire material on record. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that in spite of her willingness to lead marital life with R.W.1, he is not allowing her to live with him and R.W.1 also has not stated that he is ready and willing to receive the wife and children. Ex.P1-deposition of the husband in C.C.No.86 of 2003, reveals that he described one Malathi as his wife. Under the said circumstances, no woman will live with her husband who is living with another lady. The divorce granted in O.P.No.329 of 2002 filed on the ground of desertion and adultery by the Family Court, Visakhpatnam was an ex parte decree and the petition in I.A.No.934 of 2004 filed in O.P.No.329 of 2002, to set aside the said ex parte decree, has been dismissed by the Family Court, against which a revision has been preferred by the respondent before this Court. The term ‘wife’ as defined under section 125 (b) of Cr.P.C. includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the parties that after obtaining decree, the wife has remarried and she is not entitled to any maintenance, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the courts below warranting interference by this Court. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J January 20, 2011 Lmv