THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.663 of 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein filed M.C. No.13 of 2008 under section 125 of Cr.P.C against her husband claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards her food, clothing, shelter and other expenses. The husband opposed the said M.C. stating that the petitioner is a highly educated lady with M.Com Degree and other qualifications and she is able to maintain herself. The husband further stated that on her own had deserted his company and as such she is not entitled for any maintenance. 2 During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and another witness was examined as P.W.2. The husband got himself examined as R.W.1. Having analysed the said evidence, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance and accordingly awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The husband questioned the same by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.121 of 2009 and the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, taking into consideration the fact that the wife is an educated woman and the husband is an illiterate, set aside the said order of maintenance passed by the trial court. Questioning the same, the wife filed the present revision. 3 Heard both sides. 4 There is no dispute with regard to the status of the parties. Apparently the marriage between the parties had taken place on 26.08.2004 as per Hindu rituals. When once it is admitted that the petitioner is the wife, in my considered view, the husband has to maintain her. Of course, the wife is a Post Graduate woman in Commerce and has some more qualifications whereas the husband studied only 4th class. In normal circumstances, no woman who is highly educated would agree to marry a person who studied only 4th class. But the defence of the husband is that the petitioner having suppressed the fact that she cannot conceive children agreed for the marriage and after coming to know that she cannot conceive and beget children all these problems started. Whatever be the reason, admittedly, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent / husband and she came forward stating that she is unable to maintain herself. Even the respondent / husband also admitted in the court below that the petitioner is a poor lady and her family has no properties and hence he only bore the marriage expenses at the time of marriage. From this admission it is clear that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain herself. Hence this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance. 5 Accordingly this revision is allowed, the 1st respondent/husband is hereby directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the petitioner towards her maintenance. In so far as the arrears are concerned, the 1st respondent / husband is hereby directed to pay a total sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. --------------- 07.10.2010 Kvsn