THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.402 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is ﬁled against the order in F.C.M.C.No.55 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Family Court, Ananthapur, dismissing the claim for maintenance. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, she was married to the respondent on 28.05.2003 and at the time of marriage, some valuable articles and cash were given and subsequently, the respondent started ill-treating her and in spite of mediation, there was no change in his attitude. She was not able to maintain herself and whereas the respondent was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and has got landed property. Therefore, she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that he was not earning as claimed and in fact, it is the petitioner herself has deserted him and consequently, the claim for maintenance is not tenable. After considering the evidence, the learned Judge has dismissed the application and consequently, the present revision is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance as prayed and if so to what amount? 4. POINT: The claim of the petitioner is that she was married in May, 2003 and the petition does not disclose as to when she left the company of the respondent. However, the allegations in the petition go to show that there was a demand for dowry and the respondent himself dropped her at her parents’ house. In the counter, the respondent has taken a plea that the petitioner resided only for a period of 20 days and subsequently went to her parents’ house by deserting him. The learned Judge has taken this as a fact and found that the present application was ﬁled on 04.09.2008 and if really the plea of desertion by the respondent is true, she would not have kept quiet for a longer time. It is also the observation of the learned Judge that a legal notice is said to have been given on 11.04.2005 calling upon the petitioner to join the respondent. But, however, no reply was given. Taking these two circumstances into consideration the claim for maintenance has been dismissed. The learned Judge also found that there was a silence on the part of the petitioner in not giving any notice for a period of more than ﬁve years after desertion. 5. In fact, except these two circumstances the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the contention of the petitioner as to whether there was a demand for dowry and harassment as deposed by her, and has rejected the evidence of PW.2, who is father of the petitioner and who is the best person that can speak about the cause. In fact, there is no reason given as to why within 20 days after the marriage, the petitioner has to leave the company of the respondent. If the petitioner has not given any notice about the desertion and claiming maintenance, the conduct of the respondent is also to be equally blamed since he himself claims to have issued a notice on 11.04.2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. But, he also kept quiet without taking any further steps. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the learned Judge has not viewed the matter from right perspective. The fact remains that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has taken place in the year, 2003 and the petitioner and respondent have been living separately and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has got any earning capacity to maintain herself and there is also no dissolution of marriage till this date nor any application by the respondent for restitution of the conjugal rights. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner disentitles herself for the maintenance by mere delay in ﬁling a claim for maintenance or in not giving a notice. Taking into consideration the above facts, even the petitioner and respondent are living separately and when the petitioner is not able to maintain herself, respondent having not pursued any step for restitution of conjugal rights having given notice in the year, 2005, it is quite clear that the respondent has neglected the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to separate maintenance. Evidently, there is no material on record to show that the respondent was doing any business or owning any property except that his father has got some landed property. Taking into consideration the above fact, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- is granted per month. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part and the respondent is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of petition. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:02-12-2011 INL