HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2844 of 2007 Between: Tadi Venkata Reddy … Petitioner And Tadi Pushpalakshmi and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2844 of 2007 ORDER:- This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the husband to quash the orders of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.116 of 2006, dated 23.03.2007, wherein the revision filed by the petitioner against the award of the maintenance to the respondents in M.C.No.2 of 2004, dated 20.09.2006, by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada,has been modified reducing the maintenance from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent-wife and confirming the award of maintenance to the 2nd respondent- minor son. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The 1st respondent-wife filed M.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son from the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively, from the date of petition in M.C.No.2 of 2004, stating that the petitioner-husband neglected to maintain them. Pending the M.C., an interim maintenance was also awarded at Rs.500/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.300/- per month to the 2nd respondent in C.R.P.No.113 of 2004, dated 28.02.2005, where the order passed by the Magistrate was modified from the date of the order i.e., 23.01.2004. To prove the negligence, the 1st respondent besides examining herself as P.W.1, also examined three more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Ex.P1-certified copy of the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner-husband in favour of one Satyaveni. Petitioner himself examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked. The trial court by an elaborate order allowed the M.C. and in view of the interim maintenance granted at Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month to the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively, directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to further pay Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.700/- per month to the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively, towards maintenance from the date of the order i.e., 23.01.2004 till the date of that order and Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively, towards maintenance from the date of that order i.e., 20.09.2006. On revision being filed the learned revisional court reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to the 1st petitioner from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- per month and confirmed the award of maintenance to the 2nd petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any finding that the husband neglected to maintain the wife and children, awarding the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not at all warranted. He further contends that no reasons were assigned for awarding the maintenance from the date of the petition. In support of the same he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak[1]. The evidence adduced by the 1st respondent-wife, who was examined as P.W.1, also shows that she joined with the petitioner after exchange of notices between them and that in her reply notice she stated that she would join with the petitioner after he put up separate family. Whereas, the petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1, also admitted that as PW.1 insisted for separate family and refused to join with him unless he put up separate family and she revealed her intention even before the elders Karri Subba Reddy and others and on the advise of the elders, they put up separate family in the house of one D.Venkata Krishna Reddy for a period of six months. He further stated that after conceiving P.W.1, she went to her parents’ house, which also shows that putting up of separate family was prior to the birth of the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate found that there are some disputes with regard to selling away the land of Ac.0-90 cents in view of the refusal by the wife and her parents, to sell away the same and that the petitioner- husband is kept away from conjugal society on account of her failure. Further it is also revealed during the course of evidence that the petitioner has not filed any O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights against P.W.1. In view of the pendency of the cases, with regard to the harassment and alleged bigamy and the petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1, admitted execution of Ex.P1 in favour of said Satyaveni, wherein it is recited by him that he treated Satyaveni as his wife. If that be the case, the 1st respondent/wife filing the case for bigamy and harassment, is justified, as no prudent lady will share her bed with other lady. Therefore, she had a justifiable ground to stay away from the husband, which amounts to negligence on the part of the petitioner. In view of the same, I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no justifiable cause for the respondents to stay away from the petitioner and claim maintenance and there is no negligence on his part. It is nextly argued that the award of maintenance from the date of petition without recording any reasons, is not justified. The very fact that along with the petition the wife filed the application seeking interim maintenance and the same was allowed awarding interim maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month to the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively in C.R.P.No.113 of 2004, dated 28.02.2005, which was modified from the date of the order i.e., 23.01.2004. In view of the same, when the respondents are entitled to maintenance at least from the date of the order, i.e., 23.0.1.2004, whereas the petition is filed on 20.01.2004 three days earlier to it, the reasons assigned for awarding the impugned maintenance from the date of petition are justified. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 19th August 2010 lmv [1] (2008) 3 SCC (Cri.) 839