THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1946 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This revision, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is preferred against the order dated 27.07.2004 in Criminal Revision Case No.11 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are wife and children of the petitioner, filed Maintenance Case No.8 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, claiming maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- to each, from the petitioner herein, on the ground that the petitioner, having sufficient means, refused and neglected to maintain them. The petitioner herein filed his counter in the M.C. denying the allegations in the complaint. 3. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, dismissed the Maintenance Case, however, giving liberty to the wife and children to go to the husband (petitioner herein) since he voluntarily expressed his willingness to accept his wife and children if they come to him, and if the husband fails to accept them, the husband has to take steps to educate his children failing which the husband was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the children. 4. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, allowed the revision awarding Rs.1,000/- per month maintenance to first respondent/wife, while confirming the order of the trial court in respect of respondents 2 and 3. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner/husband. 5. Now, the point for determination is whether the orders of the courts below are legal, correct and proper ? 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a categorical finding has been given by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner herein did not neglect the wife, and the said finding cannot be said to be perverse, but without recording reasons, the revisional court granted maintenance to the wife; that, the petitioner/husband is always ready and willing to take back his wife and maintain his wife and children, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the first respondent/wife was necked out from the house by the petitioner in the month of May, 2001 with a demand to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents, and unable to bear the cruelty, she lodged Ex.P1-complaint with police, who registered a case and laid charge sheet; that, the offer made by the petitioner/husband is not true and correct and it was made with a view to evade maintenance, and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the revision case. 8. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings of the court below are illegal or improper or incorrect or not based upon any evidence or inadmissible is taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been ignored, normally this court will not interfere with the same. 9. There cannot be any dispute that, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wife has to show that she was neglected by her husband and she was unable to maintain herself and that her husband was having sufficient means. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Paternity of the children is also not in dispute. No doubt, the trial Court has given a finding that husband did not neglect the wife and accordingly held that wife is not entitled to maintenance. However, the revisional court gave a finding that wife was neglected by her husband and therefore she was forced to go with her senior paternal uncle. 10. The case of the wife is that she was necked out from the matrimonial home with a demand to bring Rs.3.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. It is not in dispute that father of the first respondent/wife was having Ac.20.00 of land and as he was unable to cultivate the land, he sold away that land. It is also in the evidence on record that she along with her children were maintained by senior paternal uncle. In the evidence, she categorically stated that she was willing to come and join with her husband provided he takes back her and her children and maintain them. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clear that wife was not having sufficient means to maintain herself. In ordinary circumstances, no wife would leave her matrimonial home unless she was having sufficient means and her father is affluent person. Similarly, the petitioner/husband stated that he is also ready and willing to maintain his wife and children. If that offer has come from the heart of the husband, certainly he would have taken all the steps to get back his wife. Except mere oral testimony of the petitioner herein, he has not made any efforts to bring back his wife. Therefore, it can be inferred that the evidence of P.W.1, which is clear that she was necked out from the house with a demand to bring Rs.3.00 lakhs as additional dowry from her parents, is acceptable. Further, if the petitioner/husband is not interested in the amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs, certainly he would have taken some effective steps to bring back his wife. It is further clear that the wife lodged a complaint before police against her husband alleging that she was treated cruelly, and police registered a case and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet. When she was necked out from the house with a demand to bring Rs.3.00 lakhs, it can be said to be neglect on the part of the husband. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the first respondent/wife was neglected by her husband without any justifiable cause. 11. No doubt, R.W.1 stated that he never demanded any amount, but in view of the fact that the wife went to the extent of lodging the complaint against her husband and also file a petition seeking maintenance, it would clearly reveal that the first respondent herein had no option but to approach the court seeking redressal. The earliest version in Ex.P1 would also go to show that husband was harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs. 12. Coming to the means, admittedly, on his own showing that the petitioner is maintaining a college, though it was owned by his uncle, and he was having properties. Admittedly, he sold some of the lands to third parties by executing registered sale deeds. It is also in his evidence that he gave Rs.30.00 lakhs to his wife during pendency of the maintenance case. Though that is not substantiated with other evidence, at the same time, it is clear from this that he was having sufficient means. His father was having lands and cinema theatre. The first respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and she is completely under the mercy of her paternal uncle who is looking after the children. Considering the income of the petitioner, granting of maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month cannot be shown to be excessive. Even that amount is hardly sufficient to maintain and both ends to meet in view of the escalation of prices of all the commodities. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 13. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. -------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 7.9.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1946 OF 2004 Date: 16.9.2009 Between: T.Vijaya Mohan Reddy …Petitioner and Thonduru Bharathi & others …Respondents This Court made the following: