IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 3540 of 2007 Between: Seerapu Chandramati . .Petitioner And Seerapu Chittibabu and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 3540 of 2007 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife questioning the order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. 2) Marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent took place on 09.05.1978. They have two children. The petitioner and the 1st respondent have been living separately at least since the year 1998. The petitioner filed petition before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tekkali in M.C. No.12 of 2003 seeking maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the 1st respondent. After enquiry the Magistrate dismissed the petition. The petitioner took the matter before the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.18 of 2005 and it also met with the same fate. 3) It is contention of the 1st respondent that due to mutual differences between the petitioner and the 1st respondent there was customary divorce on 26.07.1998 in the presence of elders and Ex.D-1 divorce deed was executed by both the parties on the same day and that both the children were kept in custody of the 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent paid Rs.47,500/- and also gave Ac.0-40 cents of land to the petitioner towards permanent alimony. The respondent examined himself as R.W-1 and examined two elders who signed as such in Ex.D-1, as R.Ws 2 and 3 and they spoke to the said facts. The petitioner did not speak to the said facts. The petitioner did not disclose either Ex.D-1 or terms contained in Ex.D-1 in her petition. During the course of evidence, the petitioner as P.W-1 and her father as P.W-2 admitted their signatures in Ex.D-1 divorce deed which also contains recitals of payment of Rs.47,500/- and giving of Ac.0-40 cents of land. P.W-3 who is another elder was examined on behalf of the petitioner. He also admits Ex.D-1. But it is evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 that no amount of Rs.47,500/- was paid to the petitioner under Ex.D-1. It is contended that the said amount of Rs.47,500/- was paid to another elder by name Raja Reddy, who died four years prior to filing of the petition. This is nothing but ingenious method of overcoming inconvenient fact by way of naming a person who is not available and alive now. The 1st respondent proved giving of land to the petitioner by filing Exs.D-2 and D-3 copies of pattadar pass book and title deed. Thus evidence on record clearly proved giving of Rs.47,500/- as well as Ac.0-40 cents of land by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower Courts did not go into the aspect of the petitioner not able to maintain herself in spite of the alleged giving of Rs.47,500/- and Ac.0-40 cents of land towards permanent alimony. It is for the petitioner to make out her case of not able to maintain herself in spite of obtaining cash of Rs.47,500/- and Ac.0-40 cents of land from the 1st respondent. The petitioner is totally silent on that aspect. It is not the petitioner’s case that the said cash and land is not available with her. It is not her case that interest from the said cash and income from that land is not sufficient for her maintenance. By proving payment of Rs.47,500/- and giving of Ac.0-40 cents of land to the petitioner under Ex.D-1 document, the 1st respondent has successfully demolished claim of the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Without proof of the petitioner’s inability to maintain herself, the question of any Court granting maintenance to the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. 5) Relying upon Bai Tahira V. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and another[1], L.Srinivasulu Reddy V.L.Ramalakshumma and another[2] and Maddala Nagaratnam V.Maddala Ranga Rao[3] it is contended that even divorced wife is entitled for maintenance and that even if any paltry amount was received towards permanent alimony 30 years ago, the wife is entitled for maintenance in case she proved that she is unable to maintain herself. In the case on hand, the petitioner received Rs.47,500/- and also Ac.0-40 cents of land in the year 1998. Within less than five years thereafter, the petitioner approached the Magistrate with a claim for maintenance. This is nothing but harassing the 1st respondent by one way or the other. In the mean time, the 1st respondent performed marriage of his daughter also. Thus, having regard to the entire evidence on record, the petitioner has failed to prove that she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, both the Courts below are correct in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for maintenance. 6) In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 27, 2009 KSH [1] AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 362 [2] 1996(2) ALT (Crl.) 111 (D.B.) (A.P.) [3] 2008(3) L.S. 217