THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRL.P.No.6237 of 2007 Date of Order: 01-10-2010 Between: K.Madhavi ..Petitioner and K.Jagadesh and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6237of 2007 Oral order: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) Cr.P.C. is to revise the order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry in Crl.R.P.No.99 of 2005 dated 17-10-2006 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed confirming the order of the IV Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in M.C.No.238 of 2004 dated 03-10-2005. The petitioner/wife filed the above M.C. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband at the rate of 2,500/- per month from the date of petition. The respondent/husband filed a counter admitting the marriage, but denied the other averments and pleaded that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial company and on issuing notice for divorce on mutual consent, petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and also filed the present petition. During the course of enquiry the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses—P.W.2 and 3 were examined on her side but no documents were marked. The respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2—letters written by the petitioner and Ex.R3 diary and Ex.R4—salary certificate on his behalf. P.W.2, who is no other than junior maternal aunt of the petitioner, stated that after marriage the petitioner joined the respondent and they lived happily for about 2 years; later the respondent underwent surgery for appendicitis at Bhadrachalam, at that time she stayed there for 10 days and later P.W.1 and respondent went to the respondent’s parents house at Korukonda; within three months P.W.1 came to the parents’ house and told her that her in-laws harassed her; when the father of P.W.1 went to her in-laws house, they sent P.W.1 to her parents house by throwing her suit case outside. Whereas P.W.1 stated she was harassed by her husband and in laws and denied the suggestion that she herself left the matrimonial company and refused the respondent. The evidence of R.W.1 shows that the petitioner never cooked food for him and she used to visit her parents house frequently and finally she left for her parents’ house on her own. He also deposed that petitioner herself wrote letters—Ex.R1 and R2; Ex.R1 shows that she is not willing to join the respondent and even if she joined, there is no use for him; she clearly stated that she is living happily in her parents’ house. Whereas in Ex.R2—letter it is stated by the petitioner that her father beat her several times for her attitude with the respondent; on one occasion her father beat on the ground that the respondent did not come to their house only because of the petitioner’s attitude. She also admitted that she used to lead extravagant life during her stay with the respondent. She also admitted that all the persons in her parents’ house are also supporting the respondent pointing out her faults. Both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, concurrently held that the respondent/husband has not neglected, but the petitioner/wife herself left the company of the respondent and not entitled to claim maintenance, which do not warrant any interference. In view of the same, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion than arrived by the court below. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner/wife is at liberty to avail her remedies under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for permanent alimony and maintenance. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 01-10-2010 Murthy