THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1128 OF 2010 DT.22.06.2010 Between: Yelisela Anana @ Nagaraju ……….Petitioner Vs. Yelisela Ananda Jyothi and another Respondents O R D E R: This revision petition is filed by the husband against order of granting maintenance dated 25.02.2010 by the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, to the first respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition in the lower court, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in M.C.No.96 of 2009. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. There is no dispute that both the parties have been living separately since prior to the date of filing petition in the lower court. It is alleged that the petitioner was harassing the first respondent for additional dowry without any reasonable cause and that when the first respondent conceived pregnancy, the petitioner brought her from Hyderabad to Vijayawada and left her in his parents’ house and did not turn up again. The first respondent filed report under Section 498-A I.P.C., against the petitioner in Arundelpet (Law and Order) Police Station, Guntur and it is pending investigation. In those circumstances, the first respondent filed maintenance case in the lower court. During enquiry in the lower court, the 1st respondent examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 on her behalf. The petitioner did not examine himself as witness in the lower court and did not lead any other evidence. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the counter the petitioner expressed his willingness to take back the first respondent and that he was not at fault. No steps are taken by the petitioner either through mediators or through legal process to take the first respondent into his fold. The alleged willingness of the petitioner remained only on paper and it was not put into action. It is further contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner is now not working as Software Engineer and that he has lost his job. The petitioner did not produce any proof therefor. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the lower court rightly found that the first respondent/wife is entitled for maintenance and rightly granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to her. I do not find any reasons in law or on facts to interfere with order passed by the lower court. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU J., Dt.22.06.2010 tjs