THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.197 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner/husband filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal Revision Petition No.17 of 2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition while modifying the award of maintenance @ Rs.750/- p.m. awarded by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, (For Prohibition & Excise Offences), Nalgonda in M.C.No.11 of 2004 through order dated 22.12.2005, awarded Rs.600/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the daughter from the date of petition. None appeared for the petitioner on yesterday. In spite of posting the matter under the caption for dismissal, today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner It is the case of the petitioner that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence of RW.2, who is the land lady of the house where the petitioner and the first respondent-wife together lived as wife and husband, and who stated that the respondent No.1 deserted the company of the petitioner and left to her parents house. Unless the respondents establish that they were neglected by the petitioner having deserted voluntarily, they are not entitled to maintenance. The revisional Court though reached to a conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence with regard to the proof of income of the petitioner, ought to have allowed the revision and dismissed the maintenance case instead of modifying the maintenance. It is not disputed that PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the respondents, and RWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. It was contended before the revisional Court that the first respondent on her own accord left the house of the petitioner and did not join him in spite of his issuing notice. Subsequently, she lodged a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She also filed O.P.No.37 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Whereas the evidence of PW.1-wife shows that after the marriage, they lived happily for three months and thereafter, the respondent started harassment demanding Rs.1,00,000/- for starting his own business in his own mulgi instead of rented premises. When her father came to see her since she had miscarriage, the petitioner collected Rs.2000/- spent by him for medical expenses. In March 2001 she gave birth to the second petitioner which was also a premature delivery, for which her father spent Rs.70,000/- for treatment. The petitioner never went to see the child though they were in hospital for three months. Later they stayed with her parents. When her father took them to the petitioners house along with two elders, he bluntly refused to receive them unless her father pays Rs.50,000/- as agreed earlier for which her father requested six months time. The revisional Court found that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clearly establishes the harassment made and cruel conduct on the part of the petitioner in sending the first respondent from his house on 31.03.2003 even on the birth day celebration of the second respondent, which is a justifiable cause for the first respondent to live separately from the petitioner and hence she is entitled to claim maintenance. The petitioner, who was examined as RW.1, though stated that he issued legal notice, but he has not filed the copy of the said legal notice to prove his contention that he issued legal notice. He did not produce any corroborative evidence that the wife pressurized him to perform birth day of the second respondent-daughter at Tirupathi or else threatened that she will commit suicide as spoken to by him, which fact has not even mentioned in the counter. Hence the revisional Court disbelieved the evidence of RW.1. Since the evidence of RW.3 is contradictory and there is no corroborative evidence on behalf of the petitioner, confirmed the award of maintenance. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence. Further the concurrent findings arrived at by the revisional Court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 13th August, 2010 Js.