IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.144 of 2005 And CRIMINAL PETITION No.3449 of 2005 CRL.P.No.3449 of 2005 Between: Gidla Chitti Babu … Petitioner And Gidla Krupavathi and others … Respondents CRL.R.C.No.144 of 2005 Gidla Krupavathi and others … Petitioners And Gidla Chitti Babu and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.144 of 2005 And CRIMINAL PETITION No.3449 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: - This revision and the petition filed by the respondents and the revision petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition No.88 of 2004 respectively, arise out of the order dated 08.12.2004, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, in the said Crl.R.P., were heard together and disposed of by this common order. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in the revision are wife and children, who filed M.C.No.12 of 2002 seeking maintenance at Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the petitioners from the respondent/husband, stating that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. That the respondent used to looked after her well for some time and thereafter he started harassing and ill-treating her. On 08.04.2002 he married another lady by name V.Padmaja, deserting and neglecting the wife and her children. The respondent is working as an Engineer in N.T.P.C. and drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month, whereas petitioner No.1 has no means to maintain herself and her children. The respondent/husband opposed the petition traversing the averment that petitioner No.1 has been ill treated and harassed and that his wife is working and she has sufficient means to maintain herself. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapet by order, dated 10.08.2004, awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to petitioner No.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the children, and the maintenance will be from the date of the petition i.e., 06.08.2002. Aggrieved by the award of maintenance, husband carried the matter in revision before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. The learned Sessions Judge while confirming the award of the maintenance restricted the payment of maintenance from 10.08.2004 instead of 06.08.2002 i.e., from the date of the petition and with the said modification, dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the order viz., restricting the maintenance from the date of the order i.e., 10.08.2004, the wife and the children filed Crl.R.C.No.144 of 2005, whereas questioning the award of maintenance, the husband filed Crl.P.No.3449 of 2005 The petitioner in criminal petition contends that he obtained divorce from his wife and hence the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance. In support of his case, Ex.R1 copy of the order in divorce petition was filed, wherein for non-appearance of the wife an ex parte divorce has been granted. Whereas petitioner No.1 in M.C., contends that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are born to the respondent and in the written statement filed by the respondent, he admitted the relationship between both the parties that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are their minor children. Only during the course of evidence, he denied the paternity of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the M.C. produced the counter filed by the respondent wherein he categorically admitted the relationship between the parties i.e., petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are born to him. Therefore, any contra evidence let in by him to the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration to deprive the petitioners from maintenance. Even under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the illegitimate children are also entitled to maintenance and when there is no dispute that petitioner No.1 is the divorced wife, she is also entitled to maintenance. In view of the same, I do not see any force in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/husband that petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are born after obtaining divorce, are not entitled to maintenance. When the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reasons for awarding the maintenance from the date of petition, except stating that they are entitled to maintenance from the date of petition, the learned Sessions Judge rightly restricted the maintenance from the date of the order i.e., 10.08.2004. Therefore, this court does not find any error or illegality in restricting the maintenance from the date of the order. The Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Petition are, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 3rrd September 2010 lmv