THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1172 of 2009 Date: 17.11.2009 Between: Adhyamabhattar Alwar. .. Petitioner/Respondent And Adhyamabhattar Sridevi and another Respondents/Petitioners THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1172 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, in Criminal Revision Petition No.49 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in M.C. No.309 of 2004 was set aside and the petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the first respondent herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under sub- section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C, a wife who refused to live with her husband is not entitled to claim maintenance. He further submitted that after the death of his father, though the petitioner requested his wife to come and join with him, she did not join him and therefore it is a case of willful desertion. Mrs. M. Uma Devi, the State brief, argued that the learned Sessions Judge has awarded only an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards maintenance to the first respondent and that the first respondent herself performed the marriage of her daughter and that she previously worked as private teacher and at present due to her ill- health she is not able to do any work. It is further submitted that till the death of her father, the first respondent was dependent upon her father and after the death of her father she is forced to claim maintenance from the revision petitioner. It is further submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is based on well reasoning and there is no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the same. As seen from the cause title the revision petitioner’s age is shown as 61 years, his occupation is shown as landlord and the age of the first respondent, the divorced wife of the revision petitioner, is shown as 47 years. It appears from the record that the first respondent herein seems to have alleged that as the father of the revision petitioner misbehaved with her she demanded separate residence and when the revision petitioner refused to do so, she started living with her parents. Further, it appears from the record that the parties have obtained a decree of divorce and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The parties are blessed with a daughter. The first respondent herein had brought up her daughter and performed her marriage. It appears that the first respondent was dependent on her father till the death of her father and after the death of her father now she is claiming maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the judgment reported in Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri and others[1], held that though the first respondent herein is divorced wife and though the revision petitioner obtained divorce on the ground of desertion, the first respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance until she remarried. No other point is argued and no other decision of the apex Court has been cited to show that the Hon’ble apex Court has taken any other view. This Court is bound to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above. In the circumstances, I hold that there are no merits in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.11.2009 Nsr [1] 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC)