THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.NO.369 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is ﬁled by the ﬁrst petitioner against the order dated 29-11-2008 in FCMC No.15 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Family Court at Srikakulam. The petitioners 1 and 2 claimed maintenance @ 1,000/- per month alleging that the marriage of the ﬁrst petitioner with respondent was performed on 19-05-2006 and the second petitioner was born in lawful wedlock and thereafter the respondent has neglected to maintain them and there were some disputes and consequently the petitioners were living away from the respondent. They have no source of maintenance and the respondent was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and he is liable to pay maintenance. The respondent ﬁled a counter contending inter alia that he issued a notice on 17-01-2008 requesting the ﬁrst petitioner to join him and having received the notice she kept quite. He is earning a daily wage of Rs.60/- and he has to look after his parents. According to the respondent, the ﬁrst petitioner has voluntarily left the company of the respondent. After taking the evidence on record, the learned Judge has rejected the claim of the ﬁrst petitioner and granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the second petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the ﬁrst petitioner is entitled for maintenance and if so to what amount? POINT:- There is no dispute about the fact that the ﬁrst petitioner and the respondent are living separately. According to the case of the respondent, the ﬁrst petitioner herself left the company of the respondent and therefore there is no reasonable cause for her to live away from the respondent and in fact a legal notice was issued for the restitution of conjugal rights and the ﬁrst petitioner has not come and lived with the respondent. The reasoning of the lower court goes to show that there were some contradictions with regard to the evidence of PW.1 to 3 as to whether the parents of the respondent to come to their house and as to whether the respondent has got issued a notice received by her or not and the attending of the function of the naming ceremony of the second petitioner and consequential refuse to send her by her parents and, therefore, the apprehension of the ﬁrst petitioner to join the respondent and to live with him is not reasonable. The learned judge also found that there is a contradiction in the evidence of the ﬁrst petitioner about when the criminal complaint was given and as to whether it was before the legal notice or after the notice. Evidently, the ﬁrst petitioner has gone to the house of her parents for delivery and after the birth of child, the ﬁrst petitioner did not join the respondent. In fact, though a notice is said to have been issued on 17-01-2008 calling upon the ﬁrst petitioner to join the company of the respondent, no steps have been taken by him for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also in the evidence that a criminal complaint is said to have been lodged against the respondent and his family members for an oﬀence under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, these circumstances clearly go to show that there is suﬃcient reason for the ﬁrst petitioner to stay away from the house of the respondent even if it is by her own act. In fact, the order of the lower court does not show that it has considered about the truthfulness or otherwise of the criminal complaint given by the ﬁrst petitioner to the police and evidently the prosecution is pending against the respondent. Therefore, in such circumstances, ﬁnding fault with the ﬁrst petitioner and denying maintenance during subsistence of a valid marriage and without there being proof of any income to maintain herself by the ﬁrst petitioner is not valid. The order of the lower Court is, therefore, suﬀers from serious inﬁrmity and consequently it is held that the ﬁrst petitioner is entitled for separate maintenance. Taking into consideration the earning capacity of the respondent and his family status, a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) is ordered to be paid by the respondent from the date of the petition to the ﬁrst petitioner as maintenance. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 02-12-2011 TSNR