THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1843 of 2004 ORDER:- This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the orders dated 24th September, 2004 in M.C.No.73 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, whereby respondents No.1 and 2 were awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to each. The brief facts of the case are that:- The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was performed on 16.08.1998 and they lived happily for quite some time and on account of their wedlock, the second respondent was born. However, as the petitioner started ill treating respondents No.1 and 2 herein, they approached the above said Court and filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Code”) claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month respectively. During the course of trial, the first respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined on her behalf. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and three more witnesses were examined and he also got exhibited Exs.R1 to R.3. Having considered the said oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that respondents No.1 and 2 herein are unable to maintain themselves and the petitioner is having sufficient means and accordingly, awarded maintenance as stated supra at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to each and the same is questioned in this revision. Sri Shiviah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband i.e., the petitioner herein filed O.P.No.210 of 2003 seeking divorce under Section 13 (1) (i) and i(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, and in fact, a copy of the petition was also marked as Ex.R1. Subsequently, the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad, having assessed the entire evidence in the said O.P. came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein is living in adultery and accordingly, dissolved the said marriage. It is his further submission that when it is established that the wife is living in adultery, she is not entitled for maintenance and in that context he placed reliance on sub-section 4 of Section 125 of the Code. There is no dispute with regard to the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the order dated 08.03.2006 in O.P.No.210 of 2003 whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved. At para 30 of the said order, it is stated by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy that the first respondent herein developed illegal intimacy with one N.S.V. Ramana but, it shall be remembered that the said order copy is not a part of the record. Of course, this Court can permit the petitioner to file an application to mark copy of the order as additional evidence but according to Section 127 (2) of the Code, it is always left open to the petitioner to bring this particular fact to the notice of the Court which granted maintenance and seek cancellation of the said award . It may be apt to refer to sub- section 2 of Section 127 of the Code and it reads as under:- “Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly.” In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can as well move the very same Court seeking cancellation of the said award. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. It is made clear that the trial Court shall not take any of the observations made by this Court in this revision in deciding the said petition to be filed by the petitioner herein. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th February 2011 bud