HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.4753 OF 2007 Date: 05.12.2009 Between: …..Petitioners/A-3,4 & 6. And: …..Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.4753 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the wife under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning order dated 22.06.2007 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur at Gooty. The petitioner representing herself and her minor daughter filed M.C.No.7 of 2004 under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to herself and Rs.2,000/- per month to her minor daughter from the 1st respondent on the ground that they are unable to maintain themselves and that the 1st respondent who is having sufficient means, is neglecting and refusing to maintain them. Marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent took place on 28.06.1999. The 1st respondent is working as Stenographer in a private company at Chennai. By the date of filing of the petition before the Magistrate, both the parties were living separately. The petitioner along with her minor daughter has been living in her father’s house at Guntakal. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has refused to reside with him without any sufficient reason. The Magistrate having regard to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C dismissed maintenance case on the ground that the petitioner is unjustifiably and unreasonably refusing to join the 1st respondent. The petitioner representing herself and her minor daughter filed Crl.R.P.No.6 of 2006 in the Sessions Court. The VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) partly allowed the Revision Petition granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor daughter from the date of presentation of maintenance petition before the Magistrate and dismissed the Revision Petition in so far as the wife is concerned confirming finding of the lower court about the petitioner’s unjustifiable attitude in not joining the 1st respondent. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that order of the Additional Sessions Judge is wholly unsatisfactory as the Additional Sessions Judge did not go deep into oral evidence let in by both the parties as well as documents filed. It is contended that if the Additional Sessions Judge perused oral evidence of the petitioner as P.W.1 and letters marked as Ex.P- 1 and P-2 which are in pathetic language, the revision court would not have come to that conclusion. A revision court is not expected to go deep into evidence on record making its re-appraisal as if it is an appellate court. The revision court has to see whether findings of the lower court are proper having regard to evidence placed by both the parties on record and whether the findings are based on any surmise or conjectures or improper and impermissible considerations. On a reading of order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, I am satisfied that the revision court rightly affirmed finding of the Magistrate with regard to the wife’s refusal to join the husband is not justified and is not reasonable. The revision court based its conclusion on evidence of both the parties as P.w.1 and R.W.1 and also letters exchanged between the parties, though the Additional Sessions Judge did not name the letters with reference to their exhibit numbers. I find that manner of disposal of revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and having regard to limited scope of scrutiny by a revision court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Pointing out evidence of the petitioner as P.W.1, it is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that grievance of the petitioner was that the 1st respondent was living in a joint family house wherein 15 members were residing and though she was allotted a room for living, it was without specialities like kitchen room, bath room etc. One cannot expect corporate facilities in a joint family house. It is further complaint of the petitioner as P.W.1 that the 1st respondent’s father promised to purchase a flat for being allotted to the petitioner and that after marriage, the said promise was not fulfilled. It is not a case where the 1st respondent had necked out the petitioner from his house. Even as per P.W.1’s evidence, when she narrated her difficulties to her father, her father came to Chennai and took her to Guntakal. Further, in spite of exchange of notices and filing of petition for restitution of conjugal life by the husband, the petitioner refused to join the 1st respondent. The petitioner as P.W.1 in cross-examination categorically stated that she is not willing to join the 1st respondent as he is a sadist. It is evident that the petitioner went away to her father’s house because she was not having all the luxuries which she expected in her husband’s house at Chennai. Having regard to evidence on record, both the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the wife has no justification for living separately from her husband and rightly disallowed maintenance to her. I do not find any valid reasons either to allow this petition or to remand the matter to the Revision court for wholesale reappraisal of evidence by it. This court cannot while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C sit in second revision over the order passed by the Magistrate. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:05.12.2009. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.4753 OF 2007 Date: 05.12.2009 Gk.