*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA +CRIMINAL PETITION No.6198 of 2007 % 10-3-2010 #Kurra Madhava Rao … Petitioner And $1. Kurra Padmavathi and another … Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred: NIL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6198 of 2007 Date: March 10, 2010 Between: Kurra Madhava Rao. ... Petitioner And 1. Kurra Padmavathi and another. ... Respondents * * * ORDER: Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, representing R-1 and R- 2. 2. This criminal petition is filed as against an order made in Criminal R.P.No.60 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam. 3. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the grounds and also would submit that the second respondent herein being major daughter even as on the date of the old M.C.No.18 of 2003, she is not entitled to any maintenance at all. The learned counsel also strongly relied on Section 125 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Code” for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that in the light of the clear language employed therein unless and until physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain, this aspect is established, the maintenance cannot be granted in favour of such daughter. 4. Sri Mummanei Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing R-1 and R-2 would maintain that this question was not raised at any point of time either before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Khammam, in M.C.No.10 of 2005 or before the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam, in Criminal R.P.No.60 of 2006 and, hence, such new grounds cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage in a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise if there is change in the circumstances, appropriate remedy, may be, to pray for alteration allowance by virtue of the provisions of Section 127 of the Code. Hence, viewed from any angle, the criminal petition being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing R-3 would contend that inasmuch as concurrent findings had been recorded both by the court of first instance and also the revisional court, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 6. Heard the counsel on record, perused the order made by the court of first instance and also the order made by the revisional court. 7. Respondents 1 and 2, originally, filed M.C.No.18 of 2003, which was re-numbered as M.C.No.10 of 2005, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Khammam. The said M.C. was filed under Section 125 of the Code praying for awarding of maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each of the petitioners towards monthly maintenance. The revision petitioner herein as respondent in the said M.C. resisted the same by filing counter. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence available, P.Ws.1 to 3, R.Ws.1 to 5 and also Exs.R-1 to R-4, came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 herein, the petitioners in the aforesaid M.C., are entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each from the date of the order and accordingly the M.C. was allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner herein carried the matter by way of Criminal R.P.No.60 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam and the revisional court had formulated the following point for consideration at para 8 “Whether the lower court erroneously ordered the maintenance in favour of the petitioners and whether the order under revision is liable to be set aside? The revisional court recorded reasons in detail commencing from paras 9 to 13 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the revision petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order made by the revisional court, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, in Criminal R.P.No.60 of 2006, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code. 9. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, the petitioners in the M.C. aforesaid, filed the M.C. under Section 125 of the Code to award monthly maintenance of RS.1,500/- to each of them. The averments made in the petition are as hereunder. Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and the first petitioner and the respondent are related to each other. Immediately after the marriage, the marriage was consummated and they were blessed with three daughters by name (1) Kurra Swapna (2) Kurra Sujatha and (3) Kurra Sandhya. The first petitioner and the respondent lead marital life happily for a period of 16 years and after the birth of second petitioner, the respondent started ill-treatment against petitioner No.1 and used to abuse her in filthy language for no fault of her. The respondent also used to come to his house in late hours in a drunken state on the ground that petitioner No.1 gave birth to three daughters and did not give birth to any male child. Finally, in the year 1986, the respondent necked the first petitioner out of the house along with three children. On the intervention of elders, the respondent promised to maintain the petitioner and used to send Rs.1,000/- per month and failed to pay even the said amount since last two years. 10. It is also averred that the first petitioner celebrated the marriage of her eldest and second daughter with the properties of her ‘pasupu kumkuma’ and also raising loans from her relatives. The respondent is willfully neglecting the petitioners and failed to pay the maintenance. It is also stated that the respondent is living with a concubine by name Himavathi at Pandurangapuram and also constructed a residential house by selling the land which he succeeded from his ancestral one at Khanapuram village. 11. Further it is stated that the respondent is having sufficient means having landed properties Ac.3-36 guntras in Sy.No.144 of Ballepally village and two portion house consisting of 6 rooms RCC building at Balapeta and he is doing real estate business and getting Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioners are not having any means to maintain themselves. Hence, the petitioners pray to award monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each petitioner towards maintenance. 12. The revision petitioner herein, as respondent, filed counter resisting the claim as hereunder. The respondent denies all the averments made in the petition. The respondent submits that the first petitioner is an adamant woman. The properties and amounts are in her hands and the first petitioner intentionally neglected the respondent on taking advantage of the innocence of the respondent. The respondent is the illatom-son-in-law to the parents of the first petitioner. The first petitioner herself necked out the respondent from the house of her parents. The first petitioner is having sufficient means in her hands and she is having landed properties, net cash. 13. As already aforesaid, both the court of first instance and also the revisional court appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, R.Ws.1 to 5, Exs.R-1 to R-4 and came to the conclusion that the petitioners in the M.C. aforesaid i.e., respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/-. No doubt, in addition thereto, costs also had been awarded as specified supra. 14. Section 125 of the Code is for order of maintenance to wives, children and parents. Section 125 (1)(c) of the Code specifies as hereunder. “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself.” 15. This Court had given anxious consideration to this provision and also the respective stands taken by the parties, both in the M.C. aforesaid and also before the revisional court. This ground was not putforth at all. It is also stated that the second petitioner in the M.C.- second respondent in the criminal petition was married. In the light of the same, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion in this regard at this stage. 16. Section 127 of the Code deals with alteration in allowances. In the light of the change in the circumstances, in the event of the petitioner being of the opinion that for any reason the second respondent may not be entitled to the further maintenance in future, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard. 17. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that by virtue of the direction made by this Court, maintenance amounts had been deposited, but permission had not been granted to withdraw the same. It is needless to say that respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the said amounts without furnishing any security. 18. With the aforesaid liberty, the criminal petition shall stand dismissed. ___________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: March 10, 2010. BSB L.R. Copy to be marked.