IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.865 OF 2009 Between: Jadagadala Sankara Rao … PETITIONER And Smt. Jadagadala Venkata Lakshmi and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.865 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. On 05.07.2010 the petitioner’s counsel was absent both during before lunch session and after lunch session. There was no representation. Hence, the matter was directed to the posted to today under the caption of “For dismissal”. In spite of it, today also the petitioner’s counsel is absent and there is no representation. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 2. The petitioner/husband filed this revision petition questioning order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.C.No.149 of 2005, granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. There is no dispute about marriage between the parties. There is also no dispute about both of them living separately since some years prior to filing of the petition in the lower Court. The first respondent contends that the petitioner harassed her both physically and mentally for the sake of additional dowry and when she expressed her inability, the petitioner went away along with his sister and brother-in-law, leaving her alone at Visakhapatnam. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that about ten years ago the first respondent left his company along with another male person and his enquiries reveal that the first respondent married the said person and therefore, on the advice of elders he married another lady by name Laxmi, through whom he has got one child, aged six or seven years. Thus, admittedly the petitioner is now living with his second wife. There is no proof of divorce between the parties. The petitioner did not name the person with whom the first respondent is stated to have left. There is absolutely no proof of the first respondent marrying another person as her husband after separation between the parties. Having regard to oral evidence on record and above admitted facts, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the first respondent has got every reason to live separately and claim maintenance from the petitioner. The first respondent has no means to maintain herself. Whereas the petitioner is working in railways and was getting Rs.6,000/- per month in the year 2005 as salary. In these circumstances, the lower Court rightly fixed maintenance amount payable by the petitioner to the first respondent at Rs.2,000/- per month. There are no infirmities in the order passed by the lower Court, warranting interference by this Court in this revision petition. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 06, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.865 OF 2009 July 06, 2010