THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7195 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order passed in Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2007 dated 1.9.2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, whereunder order passed in M.C.No.1 of 2005 dated 15.2.2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira dismissing the petition was reversed and the revision was allowed directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent-wife towards maintenance. Whereas the petitioner is the respondent-husband and the first respondent is the petitioner (wife) in the maintenance case, for the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the maintenance case. The petitioner filed the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- from the respondent. According to the petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2003 as per their caste customs and rites in the presence of elders and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.80,000/- to the respondent towards ‘pasupukumkuma’ apart from gold ring and wrist watch and they lived happily for three months and thereafter, he started harassing her with the help of his family members demanding additional dowry and motorcycle and the respondent got illegal intimacy with one Kolla Sailaja D/o Subba Rao, R/o Vijayawada and at her instance, she was driven out of the matrimonial house about an year prior to the filing of the case and since then she has been living with her parents. Further, thereafter, she gave a report to the police, which was registered as Cr.No.153 of 2004 and the same is pending trial. Further, the respondent is working as Constable and getting Rs.6,000/- as net salary, hence this petition. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent in maintaining the petitioner and the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent neglected and deserted her and she herself had been living separately refusing to join the respondent. Questioning the said order, the petitioner-wife filed Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2007 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam and the revisional Court allowed the revision holding that the respondent willfully neglected to maintain the petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner. Hence this criminal petition is filed by the respondent. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was adamant and left the company of the respondent on her own accord deserting him and the Sessions Court failed to consider the said aspect. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition. The scope of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine the matter is very limited. The order of the revisional Court can be interfered only when the order is perverse or material evidence adduced was not considered. Further, it is claimed that because of the misbehaviour of the petitioner, Exs.R1 and R2 were issued to the respondent by his employer about which there is no good basis. Further, it is pertinent to note that as per the record, their marriage took place on 19.11.2003 and later they parted from each other, but from which date they exactly parted is not given. Further, there is no dispute that the respondent-husband was working as Police Constable on a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, but he failed to establish that the petitioner got sufficient means to maintain herself, whereas she asserted that she got sufficient means to maintain herself. The respondent has to show his bonafides and as dutiful husband, he should have taken steps to get her back or atleast paid necessary maintenance to her when she got no means to maintain herself, about which there is no evidence, for which adverse inference has to be drawn. I am of the view that the revisional Court examined the matter properly and there is no reason to interfere with its findings. Further, the amount awarded is reasonable taking into consideration the salary of the respondent. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the revisional court. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 21-10-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7195 of 2008 21.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7195 of 2008 Date: 21ST October, 2011 Between: Garikapati Paul Raju .. Petitioner/Accused And Garikapati Padmaja and another. .. Respondents