HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.41 OF 2005 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: M. Narasaiah ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.41 OF 2005 ORDER: Husband of the 2nd respondent is the revision petitioner. He seeks revision of order dated 25.11.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad in M.C.No.39 of 2004. The 2nd respondent/wife filed the petition in the lower court for maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The lower court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to her from the revision petitioner. There is no dispute about relationship of wife and husband between the parties. Due to estrangement between the parties, they are living separately. The petitioner is living with another lady. It is stated that previously in OP No.197 of 2003, the 2nd respondent was granted interim maintenance of Rs.750/- pending disposal of the said OP under the Hindu Marriage Act. Previously the petitioner worked as Kalasi in Railways. Now after retirement, he is getting pension of Rs.1,900/- per month. It is contended that payment of Rs.1,000/- towards maintenance to the 2nd respondent is oppressive against him. It is also contended that the petitioners gave landed property as well as permanent alimony amount from out of his retirement benefits and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any more maintenance. As can be seen from order of the lower court, there is no dispute about giving of agricultural land by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Out of Ac.5.00 of land possessed by the petitioner in Nizamabad district, he gave Ac.1.20 cents to the 2nd respondent/wife. It is stated that son of the petitioner through the 2nd respondent is now in possession of rest of the land. It is contended that the 2nd respondent is also in possession of the house belonging to the petitioner and is enjoying the same by way of collection of rents from the property. The lower court found that the 2nd respondent is not deriving any income from the landed property. The 2nd respondent did not produce any evidence before the lower court about income from the property by way of filing any revenue records or adangals. The 2nd respondent as P.W.1 could not give any explanation as to what happened to permanent alimony amount given to her by the petitioner. In the absence of the said evidence on the part of the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the lower court very generously awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the 2nd respondent without any legal basis, particularly when there was agricultural land in possession of the 2nd respondent and when permanent alimony was also given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, this Court of the opinion that there are no valid grounds in law for awarding maintenance to the wife from the husband, particularly when there is no proof to show that she is unable to maintain herself. This is not a case where the petitioner has neglected his wife or refused to maintain her, having capacity to maintain her. The petitioner made all facilities and provided all sources to the 2nd respondent for her rest of life. Therefore, I find the lower court erred in awarding maintenance to the 2nd respondent. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of maintenance passed by the lower court in M.C.No.39 of 2004. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:12.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL RC NO.41 OF 2005 Date:12.03.2010. Gk.