HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 2313 of 2009 DATED: 16.12.2011 Between: Sriramagiri Srinivasa Vara Prasad .. Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor 2. Sriramagiri Padmaja .. Respondents O R D E R:- 1. Heard Sri G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The 2nd respondent-wife filed a Maintenance Case i.e. M.C. No. 26 of 2006 under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from her husband i.e. the petitioner herein on the ground that he neglected to maintain her. The petitioner resisted that petition, but the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali after considering the matter, partly allowed the Maintenance Case by his order dated 23.10.2007 granting a sum of Rs.1500/- per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition. Assailing that order, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 140 of 2007 and that was dismissed by II Additional District Judge, Guntur by his order dated 07.11.2008. The learned District Judge also considered the merits of the case in detail and concluded that the petitioner-husband neglected the wife. 3. The main plea of the petitioner’s counsel is that all the allegations made by the wife regarding ill-treatment or negligence are false and that the wife filed the Maintenance Case 16 years after the marriage. Both the Courts have considered the evidence let in by both sides and concluded against the petitioner. This is a pure finding of fact which does not call for interference. It may be also noted that there is no restriction in Section 125 Cr.P.C. that if the wife files Maintenance Case 16 years after the marriage that should be negatived on that ground. 4. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned District Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however points out that the petitioner divorced the wife and subsequently she got married again. There is however no evidence regarding the second marriage of the wife. It goes without saying that if the wife has married again, it is always open for the petitioner to work out his remedies under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the maintenance order. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 16.12.2011 bcj