HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2174 OF 2009 DATE:11.08.2010 Between: Boya Kamalakar …… Petitioner. And: The State of AP., rep. by PP, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and 2 others. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2174 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is filed by husband of the 2nd respondent and father of the minor-3rd respondent questioning order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Anantapur in F.C.O.P.No.12 of 2009 granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 2nd respondent married one Chandra Sekhar as her first husband and suppressing the same she married the petitioner. Ex.P-1 is Award copy dated 01.07.2006 passed by the Lok Adalat, Anantapur in P.L.C.No.599 of 2005 between the 2nd respondent and her first husband Chandra Sekhar. By that Award, marriage between 2nd respondent and her first husband was dissolved by granting decree of divorce. She also received permanent alimony of Rs.80,000/- from her 1st husband thereunder. Subsequently, she married the petitioner on 25.10.2006. She filed Ex.P.2 marriage invitation card and Ex.P.4 marriage photos with negatives relating to her marriage with the petitioner. This marriage is also registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Anantapur. Ex.P-3 is original marriage registration certificate filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is working as a Police Constable in VIII Battalion of A.P.S.P at Kondapur. There is no dispute that both the parties are now residing separately. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 2nd respondent voluntarily left his company without any sufficient cause and that therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The amount of Rs.80,000/- received from her 1st husband by the 2nd respondent under Ex.P-1 in Lok Adalat has no relevance here because this is not a claim by the 2nd respondent against her first husband who is divorced. The said amount was received in the year 2006. There is no proof that she is holding the said cash even now. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the respondents 2 and 3 are not able to maintain themselves. The petitioner did not take any steps to get back the respondents 2 and 3. He did not send any notice calling upon them to join him. He also did not file any petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Even though it is alleged that there was mediation through one Shafi and others, the petitioner did not examine those mediators in the lower court. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner necked her out of his house demanding additional dowry and on the instigation of his family members. The petitioner has got means to maintain the respondents 2 and 3. Having regard to all the above facts and circumstances, the lower court rightly awarded maintenance at the rates mentioned above to the respondents 2 and 3. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower court. 3. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:11.08.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2174 OF 2009 Date: 11.08.2010 Gk.