THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.664/2008 Dt,24-6-2010 Davuluri Siva Kumar ..Petitioner V. 1. Davuluri Lakshmipathi and another ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.664/2008 ORAL ORDER This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the orders passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur dt. 19-7- 2007 in Crl.R.P.No.177/2004, whereby the revision petition filed by the first respondent herein was partly allowed setting aside the maintenance awarded at Rs.700/- per month to the petitioner herein while confirming the maintenance awarded to the son of the petitioner at Rs.600/- per month by the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in MC No.19/2003 dt. 30-6-2004. There is no dispute with regard to solemnisation of marriage between the petitioner-wife and the first respondent-husband and blessing with a male child, Davuluri Raghupathi, second petitioner in MC No.19/2003. According to the petitioner-wife, the first respondent-husband set up a separate family at Machilipatnam by dividing from his mother and brothers and he did not come to her house. He intentionally neglected the petitioner- wife and her son openly proclaiming that she is not a suitable personality to him and if he marries another girl he will get more dowry and thereafter the first respondent-husband and his parents beat the petitioner-wire and necked her out of the house. She received divorce notice from the Court stating that she received a sum of Rs.50000/- towards permanent alimony and passed on a receipt. The first respondent denied the said allegation stating that by threatening her, he took her signatures on blank papers and prepared receipt. Since the first respondent-husband is earning Rs.15000/- by running computer institute, the petitioner-wife and her son filed the above MC seeking maintenance at Rs.2000/- each. The first respondent-husband filed a counter while denying the allegations stated that after 16 days of the marriage, she left to her parental house and later she joined him after two months and again went to her parental house and gave birth to a male child. He was not informed of the same and he was not allowed to touch the child. When his brother died, she did not even come to see his brother and she used to quarrel with him. In the month of January, 2001, the petitioner-wife along with her mother and some other people came to him and asked to settle the matter. On settlement, both parties entered into an agreement on 5-1-2001 and the first respondent- husband paid Rs.50000/- by way of DDs to the petitioner and agreed to pay Rs.300/- per month to the 2nd petitioner in MC. He is not in a position to maintain himself and he has to maintain his mother who is sick and the petitioner-wife is working in a private STD booth and earning sufficiently to maintain herself. To substantiate their respective pleas, the petitioner-wife examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. On behalf of the first respondent-husband, he himself examined as R.W.1 and got examined R.Ws.2 to 4. Exs.R-1 to R-13 were marked on behalf of the first respondent- husband. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the interim maintenance application filed by the petitioner-wife in Crl.M.P.No.1510/2004, wherein the first respondent-husband filed a counter stating that he is ready and wiling to pay Rs.250/- per month each to both the petitioners observed that no agreement has been entered into between the parties on 5-1-2001 and when the amount was paid by way of two cheques for Rs.30,000/- and 20,000/- under Ex.R-2 receipt prior to Ex.R-1 what prevented him to mention about the two cheques, which falsifies the contention of the first respondent-husband that he paid Rs.50000/- towards permanent alimony and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- to the first petitioner-wife and Rs.600/- per month to the 2nd petitioner in MC. Aggrieved by the grant of maintenance, the firs respondent-husband filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge after took into consideration the contents of Ex.R-1-settlement agreement dt. 5-1-2001, whereunder the revision petitioner has paid Rs.50000/- as full and final settlement towards maintenance to the wife, which was received by the petitioner-wife and to the said effect, she also issued receipt-Ex. R-2 in the name of the revision petitioner. Under Ex.R-2, she received Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20000/-. Though it was alleged that the first respondent-husband has forcibly obtained her signature and also the thumb impression of P.W.2 who is the mother of the petitioner-wife, there was no evidence on record against the husband. Admittedly, the petitioner-wife who filed criminal case under Sec.498-A IPC against the first respondent- husband would not keep quite if the first respondent-husband took her signatures against her will. When the scribe and attestor of Ex.R-1 categorically deposed that after the settlement agreement was reduced into writing, P.W.1 has signed and P.W.2 put her thumb impression on it in their presence and in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioner-wife to rebut the evidence adduced by the first respondent-husband, it can safely to conclude that settlement was entered into between the husband and the wife. Further, under Exs.R-5 to R-11-M.O.slips, the petitioner-wife received the amounts from the first respondent-husband towards the maintenance of petitioner No.2 in MC (son of the petitioner-wife and the first respondent-husband) as per Ex.R-1, whereunder it was agreed to pay Rs.300/- to the son of the petitioner-wife. The revisional court, after re- appreciation of the evidence made available on record, came to the conclusion that settlement put forth by the first respondent-husband was genuine, which has been proved by R.W.1 and scribe and attestor of Ex.R-1. No infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the revisional court, confirming the award of maintenance to the son of the petitioner-wife at Rs.600/- per month while setting aside the award of maintenance to the petitioner-wife at Rs.700/- per month, does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this court. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.24-6-2010 kmr