HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.137 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside order dated 8.1.2003 made in Criminal R.P. No. 101 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder, learned I Additional Sessions Judge denied maintenance of Rs.300/- to the 1st petitioner granted in M.C. No. 1 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu, East Godavari District. The revision petitioner is the 1st petitioner and the respondent is the respondent whereas the 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the Maintenance Case are their children. For convenience, I refer them as arrayed in the Maintenance Case. The 1st petitioner along with her sons filed the Maintenance Case against the respondent No.1, i.e., her husband, and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance of Rs.500/- each. The M.C. was contested and basing upon the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Court awarded maintenance of Rs.300/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.200/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3, whereas aggrieved by that, the Criminal Revision Petition on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry was preferred to set aside the order of maintenance granted. The revisional Court, while confirming the order of maintenance awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3 had set aside the order in so far as awarding maintenance to the 1st petitioner is concerned mainly on the ground that the 1st petitioner failed to live along with the 1st respondent even though he gave notice to join him and lead marital life and also filed O.P. No.39 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram to do so. It is the contention of learned counsel for the 1st petitioner that she got good evidence to uphold her claim and nothing was adduced in support of the claim of the 1st respondent and she has no means to maintain her, but the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry erroneously dismissed her claim and hence, the petition may be allowed. The point for consideration is whether there are grounds to uphold the claim of the 1st petitioner and the order passed by the revisional Court below is sustainable or not ? Evidence was adduced as per the pleas taken by both sides. Further, it is the evidence of the 1st petitioner as P.W.1 that she has been living separately from the 1st respondent on her own accord and in spite of his fling O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights, she did not join him. However, she gave evidence to the effect that her husband got addicted to drinking, gambling and other vices and also used to demand her to bring additional dowry and ultimately necked her out of the house. It is significant that for a sufficiently long time, the 1st petitioner lived along with her husband during which period, they begot the children and it shows that she really got interested in leading marital life with him. Therefore, unless strong circumstances prevailed, she would not have left the company of her husband and when there is justification for her to live separately from her husband, the subsequent incidents should not be taken into consideration. Hence, those circumstances are sufficient to prove that without any lawful cause, the 1st respondent neglected and deserted her. Further, there is no basis to show that the 1st petitioner got no means to maintain herself. Being a lawful husband, it was his duty to take care of her when she was living separately for one reason or the other, about which there is no evidence which strengthens that he is guilty of negligence and desertion of her. Hence, he is liable to provide her necessary maintenance. Point No.2: Further, it is observed by the Enquiry Court that the claim of the 1st petitioner that her husband used to earn Rs.100/- per day as a coolie, is not rebutted. Taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, it is reasonable to award the maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the 1st petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the revisional Court and confirming the order passed by the Enquiry Court in that context. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 26.4.2011 pnb