ORDER : 1. This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2015 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapur, sitting at Chintamani, (hereinafter referred to as first Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.10/2014 by setting aside the order of maintenance dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) in CMC.No.76/2005 directing to pay Rs.1,000/-as monthly maintenance to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for granting maintenance alleging that she has married to the respondent about 30 years back as per the rites and customs prevailed in their community. At the time of marriage, the father of the petitioner stated to have given golden ornaments to the respondent. Both of them were residing together and begotten three female children namely Manjula, Lakshmi and Shanthamma. For the last three years prior to the date of the petition, the respondent started to ill-treat the petitioner and he has married one Shanthamma and the petitioner is said to be thrown out by the respondent. Therefore, she filed an application for granting maintenance. 4. The respondent appeared and filed objection denying the allegation made against him, however, he has admitted the marriage between the petitioner and respondent and birth of two daughters and further taken the contention that in the year 1979 there was a panchayath held and the matter was settled, the petitioner agreed to go to her parents village by receiving a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards maintenance to herself and daughters. The said amount was given to the petitioner as life time maintenance as on 30/10/1979. Thereafter, there is no connection between the petitioner and respondent. Further the respondent contended that on instigation, the petitioner made her daughters to file a suit in O.S.No.22/2005 against the respondent for partition, which is pending for consideration and further contended that he himself being father, spent money to perform the marriage of his daughters and has spent Rs.2,00,000/-and by raising loan of Rs.75,000/-from one Sreeramareddy. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. 5. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. 5. The petitioner, she herself examined as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 and got marked 7 documents and respondent, he himself examined as RW-1 and also examined 4 witnesses as RWs-2 to 5 and also got marked Exs.R1 to R7. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court allowed the petition in part and directed he respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/-to the petitioner from the date of petition. 6. Assailing the same, the respondent filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.10/2014 before the 1st Appellate Court, which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of maintenance (in fact the respondent was required to file the revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C but wrongly filed an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. Even the 1st Appellate Court erroneously proceeded with the case and passed the order as well as disposed the matter as appeal instead of revision petition). Assailing the order of allowing appeal of the respondent by setting aside the order of maintenance, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously argued and contended that the 1st Appellate Court committed an error in allowing the appeal even though the appeal did not lie against the order of maintenance, which was passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The revision could have been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. but the appeal was filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., which is against law but the 1st Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order, which is erroneous. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st Appellate Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 that the respondent attended the marriage of his daughters. The petitioner has produced the photographs showing that both the respondent and petitioner performed marriage of their daughters together. Such being the case, Ex.R1 was a created document, which was relied upon by the st Appellate Court, which is not correct. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable for denying maintenance and further contended that petitioner is a poor woman and the respondent already married another woman and he is having two children and has neglected the petitioner without maintenance even though he has sufficient means and landed property. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable for denying maintenance and further contended that petitioner is a poor woman and the respondent already married another woman and he is having two children and has neglected the petitioner without maintenance even though he has sufficient means and landed property. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order of the 1st Appellate Court by confirming the order of the trial Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the st respondent has supported the order passed by the Appellate Court though he has admitted the position of law that appeal would not lie as against the order of maintenance but merely the petitioner filed under the wrong provision of law but, relief cannot be denied. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceptable on that ground. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner denied the execution of Ex.R1. Therefore, the witnesses have been examined, who have categorically admitted that in presence of Panchayath she has obtained Rs.40,000/-as permanent alimony for herself and daughters. Thus the witnesses have categorically deposed before the Court. That apart the petitioner denied her LTM found on Ex.R1 and disputed thumb impression on Ex.R1, which has been referred to the FSL. The report of FSL also confirms LTM found on admitted and disputed document as one and the same. The petitioner not chosen to file objections to the FSL report and as per the FSL report, the finger print expert report has been received by the trial Court and accepted wherein the respondent able to show the thumb impression found on Ex.R1 is that of the petitioner. The evidence of the respondent witnesses and respondent apart from the expert opinion were corroborate to each other and proving the thumb impression of the petitioner found on Ex.R1. 9. On perusal of these documents, especially Ex.R1 goes to show that the petitioner obtained permanent alimony of Rs.40,000/-from the respondent in the presence of the witnesses as on 30/10/1979. It is also found in the evidence that the petitioner already filed a partition suit against the respondent through her daughters which is pending for consideration. As regards to the seeking for partition by the daughters against the father, this Court cannot decide the said matter. It is also found in the evidence that the petitioner already filed a partition suit against the respondent through her daughters which is pending for consideration. As regards to the seeking for partition by the daughters against the father, this Court cannot decide the said matter. It has to decide by the competent civil court on the said issue. Merely by producing Ex.P1-wedding card of the daughters and photographs of their marriage, that itself cannot be a ground to show that both the petitioner and respondent were staying together atleast 3 years prior to the filing of the maintenance petition. The daughters’ marriage was held in the years 2001 & 2005. But the respondent is able to show that there was a marriage settlement between the parties with a permanent alimony of Rs.40,000/-though there was no divorce between them in the year 1979. This maintenance petition is filed by the petitioner only in the year 2005, almost more than 25 years after that settlement. Though there is no limitation prescribed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. but the fact remains that there was settlement between the parties, which the respondent proved by way of examining four witnesses and producing documents. Once the petitioner received permanent alimony from the respondent, once again she is not entitled for any further maintenance either under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or D.V.Act. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the latest judgment that wife is not entitled for alimony in both the maintenance petition in the matrimonial case as well as D.V.Act. Any one of the maintenance she is entitled. The 1st Appellate Court, after considering the evidence and Ex.R1 has rightly re-appreciated the evidence and set aside the order passed by the trial Court though the appeal does not lie under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., as against order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., as it is well settled by the Appellate Court that merely a wrong provision is not a ground for setting aside the order of the 1st Appellate Court. I do not find any error in respect of finding and setting aside the order of maintenance. The trial Court not properly considered the evidence on record and passed the order erroneously by granting maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the first Appellate Court and does not call for any interference. The trial Court not properly considered the evidence on record and passed the order erroneously by granting maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the first Appellate Court and does not call for any interference. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.