HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.8129 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash orders passed in M.C.No.3 of 2005, dated 31-08-2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle and in Crl.R.P.No.47 of 2007, dated 19-09-2008, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. 2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein is the respondent in the maintenance case and in the criminal revision petition, respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they are arrayed in the maintenance case. 4. The petitioner filed maintenance case against the respondent for granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month on the ground that they happened to be legally wedded wife and husband and the respondent having sufficient means and without lawful reasons deserted and neglected her. On contest in the maintenance case, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that while her marriage with the respondent was subsisting, she married again another person which finding was confirmed by the revision Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent got incurable disease and therefore, she left him but only on the advice of the respondent, and he agreed for mutual divorce with her, and also on his advice only, she went for second marriage and he agreed to pay amount for her maintenance but the respondent failed to pay the agreed amount to her towards her maintenance and the Courts below failed to appreciate the said aspect properly and arrived at incorrect conclusion. 6. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the orders as prayed for. 7. The Courts below properly examined the evidence adduced by the parties. It is pertinent to note here that admittedly, the petitioner left the respondent on the ground that he was having incurable disease and it is also admitted by the petitioner that the respondent agreed for mutual divorce and he also gave advice to her to go for second marriage and accordingly, she went for 2nd marriage. Under those circumstances, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent. Explanation (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly puts an embargo that the wife is not entitled to maintenance when she got remarried. 8. Both the Courts below gave concurrent findings on the basis of evidence and dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner, and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ 18th November 2011 kvr