HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1122 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.52 of 1998 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, against the 1st respondent herein claiming maintenance from him. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, but no documents were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. On a careful scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate allowed the M.C. awarding maintenance of Rs.250/- p.m. to the petitioner, by an order dated 21.02.2000. As against the said order, the 1st respondent filed C.R.P.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the same by setting aside the order of the trial court, by judgment dated 06.12.2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent and their marriage was performed in the year 1970 at Munduru village as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her father gave Rs.50,000/- in cash and presented 10 sovereigns of gold articles to the 1st respondent. After the marriage, she joined the 1st respondent. Out of their wedlock, no children were born to them. From the beginning, the 1st respondent did not look after her well taking advantage of her innocence and harassed her with various reasons and used to beat her without any cause. The 1st respondent is habituated to live with another woman and hence he drove her out of the house and since then she has been living with her parents. She is an innocent woman and has no means to maintain herself. The 1st respondent has Acs.4-00 of land and getting income of Rs.60,000/- p.a. Hence she filed the M.C. claiming maintenance. 3. The 1st respondent filed a counter denying the averments of the maintenance petition while admitting their relationship. 4. Heard both sides. 5. In my considered view, the findings of the learned Sessions Court that during the course of examination, the petitioner has not whispered that she is not able to maintain herself and that she is not entitled for any maintenance, are not correct. In this case, admittedly the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent and she is living separately. When once these two aspects are satisfied, in my considered view, it is immaterial whether she whispered about her maintaining herself or not. The 1st respondent being husband has a duty to maintain his wife i.e., the petitioner, and when once the wife comes forward and says that she is being neglected, in my considered view, the Court shall award maintenance taking the financial capacity of the husband. In fact, the trial court discussed the entire evidence at length and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain herself and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.250/- p.m. only. The said amount, in my considered view, is not at all sufficient to meet both ends. 6. In view of my foregoing discussion, the judgment of the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 06.12.2001 passed by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Eluru, in C.R.P.No.5 of 2001. The order dated 21.02.2000 passed by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, in M.C.No.52 of 1998, awarding maintenance of Rs.250/- p.m. to the petitioner is confirmed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 4th June, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1122 of 2002 (Allowed) 4th June, 2010 CBS