HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 2662 of 2008 DATED: 16.12.2011 Between: Smt. G. Nagabhushanamma .. Petitioner And 1. State of A.P. rep. by P.P. 2. G. Sivaiah .. Respondents O R D E R:- 1. Heard Sri R. Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner is the wife. She filed a Maintenance Case in M.C. No. 15 of 2004 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Srikakulam against her husband who is the 2nd respondent herein claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- on the plea that he and his mother sent her out and neglected her. 3. The husband in his counter made allegations of adultery against the wife and he further pleaded that the wife herself deserted him and their children about 20 years prior to the filing of the Maintenance Case and ultimately when her paramour died, she filed this Maintenance Case. 4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the case elaborately, by her order dated 04.05.2005, dismissed the claim of the wife holding that she was at fault and she deserted her husband way back in 1982 and filed the Maintenance Case 20 years later. The learned Magistrate also specifically held that the wife failed to prove any negligence on the part of the husband towards her. 5. The wife, aggrieved by the above order of the Magistrate, preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.43 of 2005 and the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi who disposed of that revision also specifically held that the petitioner herself deserted her husband and conveniently filed the Maintenance Case about 20 years later. He also specifically held that she deserted her children also. 6. The above findings are pure findings of fact and the reasons given by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge would show that they are based on sufficient evidence and no error can be found in them. It is true that this is the claim of the wife but yet the material on record as discussed by both the Courts below would show that their findings cannot be disturbed on any ground. 7. Hence, it is held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 16.12.2011 bcj