THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.1339 of 2000 Dated:11th August, 2009 Between: 1. Gudivada Dhanalakshmi & Anr. …Petitioners and 1. Gudivada Ramesh & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1339 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 31.10.2000 passed in M.C.No.37 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court at Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. to the 1st petitioner and Rs.400/- p.m. to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the order. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 11.12.2000. Despite service of notice, the 1st respondent/husband did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 3. Brief fats of the case giving raise to filing of this revision are: a) The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the son of 1st respondent/husband. They filed M.C.No.37 of 1998 under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. each. The 1st respondent/husband entered appearance before the Family Court and resisted the claim of the petitioners by filing counter. The learned Judge of the Family Court formulated the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 each are entitled for Rs.500/- towards maintenance from the respondent?” b) The petitioners examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 4 documents on their behalf. Whereas, the respondent examined one witness and exhibited 4 documents on his behalf. c) The learned Judge of the Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance and accordingly, allowed the application of the petitioners granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. to the 1st petitioner and Rs.400/- p.m. to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the order. 4. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to the maintenance from the date of the petition, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is required to be modified to that extent. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court has not assigned any reasons for not granting maintenance to the petitioners from the date of petition. When once the finding has been recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court that the 1st respondent/husband neglected the petitioners to maintain, they are entitled to claim maintenance from the date of the petition. The observation made by the learned Judge of the Family Court needs to be noted and it reads as hereunder: “On perusal of entire evidence that has been adduced in the connected case O.P.104/98, it is elicited that there are differences between them and on account of their differences only, they have been living separately. Thus, he neglected to maintain her and her child second petitioner and having no alternative she reached her parents house where she is taken shelter. The respondent has not adduced any positive evidence to establish that there is no negligence on his part. On careful consideration of the entire evidence that has been adduced in the O.P., it is noticed by this court that he completely neglected the wife and even though the mediation took place, he failed to take her to his fold. It is also noticed that after she filed M.C.37/99, he subsequently filed O.P.104/98 before this court for restitution of conjugal rights, which was later not pressed by him. On perusal of Ex.B1 letter statement and also copy of the report Ex.B.2 given to Krishnalanka P.S., and also Ex.B.3 notice issued by her to the respondent and Ex.B.4 copy of reply given by respondent clearly speak that there are differences from the beginning between the petitioner and the respondent and it is elicited that there is harassment on the part of the respondent who caused cruelty to her. But it is the contention of the respondent/husband that she is having sufficient source of income and he filed Ex.A4 showing that she is the president of Dwakra group No.393 and also a shop was allotted to her at Rythu Bazaar and she got Rs.50,000/- fixed deposit but he failed to prove them by positive evidence to say that she is having monthly earnings as president of Dwakra group. Ex.A4 is the petition to summon the officer of Rythu Bazaar who summoned and came to the court for giving evidence but the concerned document does not find place in the name of the 1st petitioner and allotment of the shop. Thus, the respondent utterly failed to prove that she has got independent source of income but sine 1997 she has been living at her parents house and also on perusal of Ex.B.3 it is elicited that he completely neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner though he got sufficient means to maintain them. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of wife and husband, it is categorically elicited that he completely neglected his wife and his children though he got sufficient means. At the same time, he utterly failed to prove that the 1st petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain herself and her child. It is also categorically proved that there is negligence on his part to bring her back to his fold. It is significant to note that in the matrimonial matters that unless there are forcible grounds to leave the matrimonial abode, no woman would leave her matrimonial abode when she does not have any independent source of income or atleast any other person to look after her. In this case also, she does not have any independent source of income to maintain herself and her child as has been elicited from the testimonies of wife and husband. Accordingly, this court is inclined to award Rs.500/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.400/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of this order.” The learned Judge of the Family Court having arrived to the finding that the respondent/husband neglected to maintain the petitioners, committed error in not granting maintenance to the petitioners from the date of petition. 6. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the admission stage granting maintenance to the petitioners as ordered by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Vijayawada in M.C.No.37 of 1998 from the date of petition. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th August, 2009. cs