THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7992 OF 2009 ORDER: The petition is filed to quash the proceedings of grant of maintenance to respondents Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.1 of 2008 and 2 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The 2nd respondent is wife and the 3rd respondent is son of the petitioner. 2. A claim for maintenance was filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 against the petitioner herein and the Court below in M.C.No.47 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur, granted maintenance to the 3rd respondent to a tune of Rs.2,000/- and refused to grant maintenance to the 2nd respondent-wife. Aggrieved by that, the 2nd respondent preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 2008 and the Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 2008 was preferred on behalf of the minor for enhancement of the maintenance. After considering the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur, has allowed the revision filed by the 2nd respondent and granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month and confirmed the maintenance granted to the 3rd respondent. But, however, restricted the enforcement of the order from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Sessions Judge in granting the maintenance is legal and sustainable? 4. POINT: There is no dispute about the fact that the 2nd respondent is wife of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is son born to them in a lawful wedlock and the marriage was performed in the year, 2001. Thereafter, they are said to have lived at Anantapur, Gooty and Hindupur and for the first time in 2005 disputes are said to have been arisen between the parties and the 2nd respondent was said to have been necked out and she was staying with the parents. The contention of the petitioner herein, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate and set aside the by the learned Sessions Judge is to the effect that the second respondent herself has left the company of the petitioner and consequently, she is not entitled for the maintenance. In this connection, it is to be noted that the plea of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent was not interested in living with the petitioner and she intends to have a luxurious life and in fact when she has gone to her parents’ house and did not return and an application for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed. These are all the circumstances showing that the 2nd respondent herself left the company and consequently the petitioner is not liable to pay the maintenance. 5. In this connection, the evidence of PW.1, which clearly goes to show the circumstances under which she was living at Hindupur have to be taken into consideration. Her positive assertion was that while she was living at Hindupur, the petitioner herein brought another lady and she was asked to sleep outside. Therefore, this clearly entitled her to leave the company and claim for maintenance. So far as the claim of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was always interested in living with her parents is concerned, it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the 2nd respondent lived with the petitioner when he worked at Anantapur, Gooty and also Hindupur for some time and a child was also born in the lawful wedlock. Therefore, the mere filing of the application for restitution of conjugal rights is no ground to blame the conduct of the wife. As matter stands, the marriage is subsisting and the wife is living separately and there are no acceptable reasons to hold that the 2nd respondent left the company voluntarily and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:22-12-2011 INL