HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11458 2010 DATE: 22-12-2011 BETWEEN: P. Surendra Phani. - - - Petitioner/ Respondent/ Respondent. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another. - - - Respondents/ Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11458 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 29-07-2010 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.46 of 2008 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Respondent and the Respondent No. 2 herein is the first Petitioner in M.C. No.46 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. , 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of the respondent. They have filed a petition seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the first petitioner and Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the second petitioner and costs of the petition. Their case is that the marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 03-03-2002 at Hyderabad and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- dowry and Rs.42,000/- worth sari samans were paid to the respondent besides incurring marriage expenses to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. After the marriage, the first petitioner joined the respondent at his place of residence at Hyderabad and lead happy marital life for some time. In the month of April, 2002 the respondent along with the first petitioner attended his friends marriage at Mandapeta and after attending the marriage, the respondent took the first petitioner to her parents house and left there. Subsequently, after 20 days, the first petitioner returned to her in-laws house in the last week of April, 2002 and again went to her parents house during the Ashadamasam and returned to Hyderabad. Subsequently, she became pregnant and went to her parents house for delivery and gave birth to a male child on 25-05-2003. It is alleged that the respondent did not take care of the health condition of the first petitioner and he did not turn to see the child till the date of filing the maintenance petition. The first petitioner made several phone calls requesting the respondent to come and see his son but in vain. It is also alleged that during her stay at Hyderabad the respondent used to harass her physically and mentally. He was addicted to all vices and used to spend his income on his vices. It is also alleged that he beat the first petitioner and tried to kill her with gas tube and acted to the tunes of his parents and brother and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The first petitioner bore all torture with a fond hope that there may be a change in the attitude of his husband. Subsequently, the first petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent on 07-03- 2005 demanding to pay maintenance to her and her son but as there was no reply from the respondent, she filed the petition seeking maintenance. It is also her case that the respondent is doing finance business at Hyderabad and getting not less than Rs.20,000/- p.m. from his business besides getting Rs.5,000/- p.m. as rent from his house at Hyderabad. 4. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations. However, he admitted the relationship. His case is that the first petitioner was given all comforts, independent bedroom along with a cable colour T.V. tape recorder and a servant to assist her. It is also alleged that the first petitioner used to attend the parties, functions and he used to lead a normal and peaceful life. It is alleged that all of a sudden, the first petitioner started behaving in an abnormal way and not used to wake up till 08-00 a.m. in the morning and used to spend in the bedroom; she was not used to take lunch and dinner along with other family members. Day by day, her attitude became aggravated. In the above circumstances, she was left in her parents’ house. After almost one month i.e. in May, 2002 the elder brother brought the first petitioner to the respondents place and apologized for the mistakes of the first petitioner and then he allowed the first petitioner to lead matrimonial life but subsequently there was no change in the attitude of the first petitioner. It is also his case that when the first petitioner became pregnant, she refused to take treatment and in the 7th month of her pregnancy her younger brother came and took her to their parents house on 19-03-2003. It is also his case that in April, 2003 he took the first petitioner to one of his friends marriage at Rajahmundry and after attending the said marriage, in return, while the respondent was taking a nap the first petitioner without informing him went to her parents house. It is also his case that when he contacted the first petitioner, her brother abused him. It is also his case that on 24-03-2003, the respondent made a phone call to know about the health condition of the first petitioner, but her reply was adamant and she categorically asked him not to make phone calls to her. It is also his case that on 25-08-2003, he received a letter through registered post sent by the father of the first petitioner stating that her daughter delivered a male child on 25-05-2003 and when he made a phone call, her younger brother threatened him with dire consequences if he dares to visit Kakinada. It is also his case that he had sent his friend by name Ravindra to visit the parents of the petitioner, but the parents of the petitioner alleged that the respondent is a HIV patient. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, she herself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, he himself was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked. 6. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada after going through the entire evidence and having gone through the conduct of the first petitioner came to the conclusion that the respondent cannot be said to be responsible for the trouble and held that the first petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance and that the second petitioner is entitled for maintenance, awarded Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the second petitioner towards his maintenance. Challenging the said order, the wife preferred a Revision before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada. The learned Sessions Judge, by his impugned order dated 29-07-2010 having regard to the changed circumstances, awarded Rs.1,500/- p.m. as maintenance to the first petitioner towards her maintenance. 7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable? 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent i.e. the husband filed O.P. No.113 of 2004 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and subsequently got transferred the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada and numbered as O.P. No.152 of 2004, which was allowed directing the first petitioner to joint the company of the respondent to lead marital life. It is submitted that subsequently the respondent filed O.P. No.606 of 2007 and obtained a decree of divorce from the Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad. He has produced a coy of the order, which reveals that the husband filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (a) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties. The wife remained ex parte. Since the wife remained ex parte, the learned Family Court Judge dissolved the marriage between the parties. It is also submitted that after dissolution of the marriage, now the respondent has remarried. In view of the changed circumstances, I am of the view that there is no need to consider the attitude of the parties before dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the first petitioner, being a divorced wife, is entitled for maintenance or not? 9. Admittedly, she is a housewife. The petitioner herein has been doing business. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband submits that the petitioner sustained loss and he is not able to do business. Having regard to the entire material and evidence adduced before the Court and subsequent changes and the fact that now the parties are divorced, I consider it just and reasonable to reduce the maintenance amount awarded to the first petitioner-wife from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- p.m. towards her maintenance. Subject to the above modification, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Dated: 22-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 28 CRIMINAL PETITION No.11458 OF 2010 December, 22, 2011 DSH