THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6825 of 2007 Date of Order: 11-11-2010 Between: 1. Oburai Adilakshmamma and others ..Petitioners and 1. Oburai Venkateswarlu and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6825 of 2007 Oral order: This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. is to quash the orders of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole passed in C.R.P.No.65 of 2005, dated 01-03-2006. Petitioners herein filed M.C.No.8 of 2002 claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to each of them. The 1st respondent/husband resisted the claim of the petitioners/wife and children stating that except salary of Rs.3,000/- per month, which he is getting after deductions, he has no other source of income and the 1st petitioner/wife herself left the company of the respondent and staying with her parents. The learned Magistrate by order dated 05-07-2005 allowed the petition granting Rs.1500/-per month each to the petitioners holding that maintenance petition was filed in year 2002 whereas Section 125 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2001 and maximum limit of maintenance was done away; and the 1st petitioner/wife in her evidence claimed Rs.3,000/- for her and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners for education and since the amendment is applicable to the pending proceedings, he awarded Rs.1500/- each. Questioning the said order the 1s t respondent/husband carried the matter in revision before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the admission of P.W.1/wife that for all the nine years, till she join the respondent at Mydukur, she lived in her parents’ house at Pullalacheruvu, which shows that between 1992 and 2000 she lived with her parents only; the allegation that respondent/husband ill- treated her from 1998 at Mydukur and left to her parents’ house is a false theory and in support of her claim she lead false evidence that her husband was suspecting her fidelity. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that from the beginning the respondent was denying his paternity to petitioners 2 and 3, but the same was not set out in the petition. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that at the instance of the respondent/husband, the brother of P.W.1 was convicted; so, P.W.1 and her mother developed hatred and suspicion against the respondent and living separately. Therefore, P.W.1/wife is not entitled to maintenance and minor petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance. When the petition for maintenance itself is filed in the year 2002 i.e. after amendment of Section 125 Cr.P.C., if they do not satisfy the quantum of maintenance, they have to make another application for alteration of maintenance, but cannot lead evidence contrary to the pleadings and accordingly partly allowed the revision setting aside the award of maintenance granted to the 1st petitioner/wife and restricting the maintenance at Rs.500/-only to petitioners 2 and 3 (minor children). Questioning the same the present criminal petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners may be permitted to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance and the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the maintenance to the 1st petitioner/wife is erroneous. I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since cogent reasons were given by the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, as the said evidence is contrary to the pleadings. Since the admission made by P.W.1 itself shows that there is no harassment in the hands of 1st respondent/husband and she was residing with her parents’ house without any justifiable cause, she cannot throw blame on the 1st respondent/husband. No justifiable ground is made out to quash the proceedings. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 11-11-2010 Murthy