THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRL.P.NO.6484 OF 2008 ORDER This petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the order dated 30-07-2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirming the orders dated 24-3-2007 passed in M.C.No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. The petitioner filed MC No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam, under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. It is her case that she was married to the respondent on 12-3- 1991 at the office of Sub Registrar, Kothagudem and out of the wedlock, she gave birth to two children.. It is her further case that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with another woman and became addicted to bad vices and he attempted to kill her on 26-2-2002 at Kothagudem. She presented a report against the respondent before the Station House Officer, Kothagudem for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The respondent-husband filed OP No.1292 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam. She filed MC No.19 of 2005 seeking maintenance @ Rs.3,000/-. The respondent-husband filed counter resisting the relief sought for by the petitioner. The respondent took the plea that the petitioner is leading adulterous life and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. On behalf of the petitioner, she got herself examined as PW1 besides examining PWs.2 and PW3. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW1, his daughter as RW2 and another person namely D.Sadanandam as Rw3 apart from marking 10 documents Exs.R1 to R10. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is leading adulterous life and therefore, she does not deserve for grant of maintenance. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate dismissed MC No.19 of 2005 by order dated 24-3-2007. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam assailing the order dated 24- 3-2007 passed in MC No.19 of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the material brought on record, and also noting the findings recorded by the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the revision by order dated 30-07-2008. Hence, this criminal petition by the petitioner- wife. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case filed against Premanandam for the offences under Sections 497, 506 and 294(b) and 323 IPC ended in acquittal in which case the accusation leveled against the petitioner with regard to her extra marital life with Premanandam falls to the ground. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the extra marital life of the petitioner has been discarded, she deserves for grant of maintenance as claimed by her in MC No. 19 of 2005 . Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the respondent-husband besides, examining RW3 who caught the petitioner in compromising position with Premanandam, examined his daughter as RW2, who categorically stated with regard to the extra marital relationship with the petitioner, in which case the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Revision Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have gone through the order passed by the trial Court as well as the Revision Court. The respondent took the plea that the petitioner lead extra marital life with Premanandam. To substantiate the plea taken by him, he examined his daughter as RW2 and neighbour as RW3. RWs. 2 and 3 categorically stated that the petitioner is leading adulterous life. RW2 who imputed un-chastity to the petitioner, is no other than her daughter. The trial Court appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is leading extra marital life. The Revision Court tested the findings recorded by the trial Court with reference to the evidence brought on record and came to the conclusion that the trial Court did not commit any error warranting interference. No doubt, the prosecution launched against Premanandam with regard to the offences under Sections 497, 506 and 294(b) and 323 IPC ended in acquittal. Mere acquittal of said Premanandam cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of RWs.2 and 3. The evidence of RW2 and Rw3 is cogent and consistent that the petitioner is leading extra marital life. When such is the conduct of the petitioner, she does not deserve for grant of maintenance from the respondent. The trial Court as well as the Revision Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and refused to grant maintenance. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the revisional Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 7-12-2011