THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.397 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in Criminal Revision Petition No.48 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, where the maintenance granted to the 1st respondent herein in M.C.No.27 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, was set aside and the maintenance claim was dismissed. 2. According to the case of the revision petitioner, she was married to the 1st respondent at about ten years prior to 2007 and some property was given and during the year, 2007 the 1st respondent demanded additional dowry and necked her out. Therefore, she went to her parents’ house and she was not bale to maintain herself. The 1st respondent was doing fish business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The 1st respondent contended that the petitioner was adamant in her attitude and he constructed a house by spending nearly Rs.8,00,000/-, but the petitioner was not keeping in company and on 24.08.2006 she left the house with a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and other articles; in spite of repeated approaches, the petitioner has not joined and the earnings of the respondent are meagre. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e., from 09.04.2007 and when the matter was carried in revision, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the lower Court and allowed the revision and dismissed the maintenance claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance as granted by the Court below? 4. POINT: There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. It is also not in dispute that for about ten years, they lived together and disputes were said to have arisen in the year, 2006 and the petitioner is said to have left the company of the respondent. The petitioner contends that she was necked out of the house by the 1st respondent for demand of money. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the petitioner was interested in living with her parents and consequently she neglected him. This contention apparently is not believable since the 1st respondent claims that he got a house constructed for the benefit of the petitioner and that being so, there is no reason as to why she should leave the company of the respondent. On this aspect, in fact, the learned Sessions Judge also found that the contention of the 1st respondent that as she was affectionate with her parents and wanted to live with them and left the company of the 1st respondent ten years after the marriage is not acceptable and it was also found that it cannot be stated that for the sake of maintenance, the petitioner has withdrawn from the society of the respondent. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the conduct attributed to the petitioner for leaving the company of the respondent herein is not true. Mere issuance of the legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights does not show his bona fides. 5. Even according to the respondent after issuance of the notice for restitution of conjugal rights instead of filing an application for restitution of conjugal rights, he claims to have filed an application for divorce. This reflects the conduct of the 1st respondent. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has withdrawn from the society of the 1st respondent voluntarily and that she is not entitled for the maintenance. 6. So far as the finding of the appellate Court with regard to the means of the petitioner is concerned, in fact, the order does not show that the Sessions Judge has taken into consideration that the petitioner has got any income of her own by doing any employment or labour. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is the petitioner was provided with a house, wherein she has got half share and she can realize the rents and live by herself. This reasoning is not proper. If a house is owned by the petitioner, then it can only be a factor to be taken into consideration about the quantum of maintenance. But, on a supposed possibility of renting the premises and realizing the amount, the claim for maintenance cannot be rejected. Therefore, there being no evidence to show that the petitioner has got her own earnings, the learned Sessions Judge should not have dismissed the application. The learned Magistrate has granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month, whereas the 1st respondent contends that he has no such income. Even according to the claim of the 1st respondent, he claims to have invested huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for construction of the house and if the income of the fish business is meager, it is very difficult to expect that such a huge amount was available for investment in construction of a house. Therefore, this thing also clearly goes to show that the 1st respondent has sufficient means and potentiality and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and reasonable and the order passed by the Sessions Judge in interfering with the grant of maintenance is not proper. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.27 of 2007 is restored. However, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, maintenance is granted from the date of the order i.e., from 26.03.2008 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23-12-2011 INL