HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3819 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is directed against orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.58 of 2007 dated 31.03.2008 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, confirming order passed in M.C.No.14 of 2006 dated 30.06.2007 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam awarding maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner. 2. The first respondent/wife filed M.C.14 of 2006 on her behalf and also on behalf of her daughter against the revision petitioner to award each maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month on the ground that she happened to be the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and without any manner of right and having necessary means he neglected and deserted them. 3. For convenience sake I refer the parties as arrayed in the maintenance case herein afterwards. 4. The claim of the respondent is that the petitioner No.1 has been living in adultery with one S.K. Babu @ Mahammad Ali Noorullah and she left along with him in the last week of February, 2004 following which a report was given to the Station House Officer, Chilakalapudi on 12.03.2004 and the petitioner also earns Rs.100/- per day by doing coolie work and hence he is not liable to pay any maintenance to her. 5. The matter was enquired into by the learned Magistrate. During that process the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 and on behalf of the respondent he got himself examined as R.W.1 and their daughter K. Bhargavi got examined as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R.1 & R.2 which are copy of the report given by R.W.1 to the police and correspondent receipt respectively. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that R.W.2 who is no other than the daughter of both the petitioner No.1 and the respondent categorically deposed that the petitioner No.1 was having adultery with one S.K. Babu @ Mohammad Ali Noorullah and absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence and accordingly it is to be accepted and consequently the question of payment of maintenance to the petitioner No.1 is to be dismissed. 7. Therefore, the point for consideration is: whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings? 8. It is pertinent to note here that both the Courts below basing upon the evidence adduced came to the conclusion that the respondent failed to establish that she was living in adultery with the said person. R.W.2 in-fact deposed in support of the claim of the respondent. In her cross examination she deposed that the paramour of her mother used to come to their house in the absence of their father and then it is her evidence that he might have visited their house four or five times but she could not say about the corresponding dates and it is further her evidence that she informed about the same to her father. Significantly no neighbor was examined in that context. 9. It is important that admittedly R.W.2 has been staying along with her father only after the petitioner is said to have left them in the year 2004. It is quite natural that she was under the influence of her father when she gave evidence before the Court against her mother. Therefore unless evidence of some independent witness is there, much credibility cannot be given to her evidence. Other-wise I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. It is important that there is no dispute about the capacity of the respondent to pay necessary maintenance to the petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 19-08-2011. vjl