HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4233 of 2009 O R D E R: The 1st respondent is wife of the 1st petitioner and mother of the 2nd petitioner. The 1st respondent filed MC No.11 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ramachandrapuram, against the petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month from each of the petitioners 1 and 2. 2. During enquiry of that petition, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW-1 and examined PW-2 and marked Exs. P1 to P7 on her behalf and the 2nd petitioner examined himself as RW-1 and examined RW-2 on behalf of both the petitioners. The Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that there was no justification for the 1st respondent to live separately from the 1st petitioner and to claim separate maintenance. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed criminal revision petition No. 116 of 2008 before the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. The Sessions Judge by order dated 17-04- 2009 allowed the revision petition and granted maintenance of Rs.750/- per month to the 1st respondent as against the 1st petitioner and Rs.500/- per month as against the 2nd petitioner with effect from the date of the petition and gave facility to pay arrears of maintenance in eight equal monthly installments. Against that order, the petitioners 1 and 2 approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Admittedly, both the parties are living separately. Even though the petitioners’ counsel contended that the 1st respondent has got house property, in which she is residing in a portion and let out another portion to a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-, there is no pleading to that effect in the courts below. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there were no disputes between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent until their last daughter joined the 1st respondent after the son-in-law suffered loss in his business and that with an intention to enrich that daughter, the 1st respondent intended to claim maintenance and convey the amount to the last daughter. It is proved by filing Exs.P4 and P5 copies of sale deeds that the petitioners hold certain landed properties from which they have reasonable income. There is no proof of any income for the 1st respondent. 4. The 1st petitioner contends that he is ready and willing to maintain the 1st respondent in case she joins him. The 1st petitioner did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st respondent. Even though, the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are aged persons, it is only during old age, assistance of wife is required for the husband. At this old age, the 1st respondent requires not only food and shelter but also medical facilities. Having regard to the evidence on record, I agree with the findings recorded by the revisional court to the effect the 1st respondent is entitled for maintenance at the rates awarded by the revisional court. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 21-10-2010 Mjl/*