ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008 (old M.C.No.42 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur) on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), questioning the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, dated 25.08.2008 awarding maintenance in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3) The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the petitioners in F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur. Originally, they filed M.C.No.42 of 2007 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur and later it was transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, as such, it was given F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008. 4) The case of the petitioners, in brief, according to the averments in the petition before the trial Court is that the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was performed on 01.05.1998 at Sri Vidyaranya Oriental High School, Ananthapur, as per the traditions and customs prevailed in their community. At the time of the marriage, parents of the first petitioner presented cash of Rs.30,000/- and also gold ornaments weighing six tulas to the respondent as dowry. After the marriage, first petitioner joined with the respondent at his residence to lead conjugal life. During their wedlock, petitioners 2 and 3 were born to them. Since the date of marriage, respondent harassed the first petitioner on account of suspecting her fidelity. After giving birth to the third petitioner, the respondent did not take the first petitioner to his matrimonial house. The father-in-law of the first petitioner took the first petitioner to the matrimonial house. First petitioner refused to accept the proposal made by the respondent to give divorce. Subsequently, the respondent attempted to kill her and in the said process he stabbed her for which Crime No.33 of 2005 of Koderu Police Station came to be registered. Since the date of offence, respondent refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. Petitioners have no independent source of income to maintain themselves. Respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Subsequently, the respondent attempted to kill her and in the said process he stabbed her for which Crime No.33 of 2005 of Koderu Police Station came to be registered. Since the date of offence, respondent refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. Petitioners have no independent source of income to maintain themselves. Respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The case against the respondent is pending on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. The respondent is getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary and he has also considerable agricultural income. Second petitioner is studying I class in Tiny Tots School, Ananthapur. Third petitioner is also studying in Nursery class in Tiny Tots School, Ananthapur. First petitioner is paying considerable amount towards the education. So, the petitioners required a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month for each. Hence, the petition. 5) The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and attributing the neglect towards the first petitioner and the contention of the respondent in this regard is that first petitioner is not interested to live with the respondent. She always prefers to stay at her parents’ house. Respondent made several attempts to get her back, for which she replied that she is not interested to live with him. First petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent. She used to harass the respondent always. As she left the company of the respondent she is not entitled to any maintenance. Upon the report lodged by the first petitioner, respondent was placed under suspension for several years and he has no income. First petitioner is working as an Agent in Postal Department under Savings Deposit Scheme and getting considerable income and she is able to maintain herself. Hence, the petition is liable to dismissed. 6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.R.1, agreement was marked. 7) The learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, allowed the maintenance case filed by the petitioners, directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.1,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to the third petitioner, from the date of filing of the petition. 7) The learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, allowed the maintenance case filed by the petitioners, directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.1,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to the third petitioner, from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful respondent filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the order, dated 25.08.2008 made in F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008. 8) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision case, the points that arise for consideration is: (i) Whether the petitioners in F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008 before the trial Court proved that the respondent neglected to maintain them and that they are unable to maintain themselves and the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners? (ii) Whether the impugned order is sustainable under law and facts? POINTS 1 AND 2:- 9) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, would contend that from the very beginning of the marriage of the respondent with the first petitioner, she exhibited adamant attitude towards the respondent and she used to dictate the terms and it is quietly evident from Ex.R.1, which is not in dispute that the first petitioner in the maintenance case repentant herself about her previous conduct and assured the Revision Petitioner to behave with him in proper manner. That itself is sufficient to show the conduct of the first petitioner in the maintenance case. The learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, did not accept the contention of the first petitioner that the respondent suspected her fidelity unnecessarily. However, on erroneous belief that the respondent was convicted in S.C.No.368 of 2006 went on to grant maintenance to the petitioners. The said conviction of the Revision Petitioner in S.C.No.368 of 2006 was challenged before the appellate Court. On that ground it cannot be held that respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. The respondent was kept under suspension on the allegations made by the first petitioner in the maintenance case and he had no income for a considerable period and in spite of that the trial Court erroneously granted maintenance, as such, Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 10) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are no other than the petitioners in the maintenance case. First respondent is only a formal party i.e., the Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are no other than the petitioners in the maintenance case. First respondent is only a formal party i.e., the Public Prosecutor representing the State. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Registry that there is proper service of notice on the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and having received it, they did not appear and that the second respondent is representing the respondent Nos.3 and 4. As there is no other go and as the respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not appear, the matter is ordered to be listed for pronouncement of orders on merits. These are the circumstances in which the present Criminal Revision Case is being disposed of. 11) P.W.1 is no other than the first petitioner before the trial Court, who adverted the facts according to her pleadings. She further examined P.Ws.2 and 3 in support of her case and they deposed in support of the case of the petitioners. P.W.2 is the mother of the first petitioner and P.W.3 is the relative of P.W.1. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 reiterating his contentions in accordance with the counter and got marked Ex.R.1. He further examined R.Ws.2 and 3 in this regard. 12) Admittedly, it is a case where the first petitioner pleaded that the respondent unnecessarily suspected her fidelity and driven her out. It is also her further case that in continuation of such harassment, he made an attempt on her life to kill her which was the subject matter in Criminal Case under Section 307 of IPC. She further deposed that in the Criminal Case filed against the respondent, he was convicted under Section 307 of IPC. The fact that the revision petitioner herein was convicted by a competent Court on the allegations of attempt to murder the first petitioner is not in dispute. It is altogether a different aspect that the so-called appeal filed by the revision petitioner was said to be pending before a competent Court and it is not known at this stage as to whether the said appeal was disposed or not. 13) Before going to appreciate the neglect that is attributed against the respondent in the maintenance case, it is pertinent look into first Ex.R.1 agreement. There is no dispute from the evidence of P.W.1 that she signed Ex.R.1, agreement on 19.07.1999. 13) Before going to appreciate the neglect that is attributed against the respondent in the maintenance case, it is pertinent look into first Ex.R.1 agreement. There is no dispute from the evidence of P.W.1 that she signed Ex.R.1, agreement on 19.07.1999. It is to be noticed that Ex.R.1 was dated 19.07.1999 so as to resolve the disputes that were existing between the first petitioner and respondent in the maintenance case. Simply because, there was a settlement arrived at in between the first petitioner and respondent way back in the year 1999, the case of the first petitioner in the maintenance case that was instituted in the year 2008 cannot be disbelieved. Here is a case that even the police registered FIR against the respondent on the allegations of making attempt to murder the first petitioner which was said to be ended in conviction. The specific allegations of the first petitioner are that soon after making an attempt on her life which resulted into registration of FIR under Section 307 of IPC, the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. To prove the same, there is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Insofar as the act of the first petitioner in residing with her parents subsequent to the registration of the FIR, there is no effort made by the respondent to visit the house of the first petitioner. Whatever the situation that may be, but the fact remained is that the respondent was alleged to have caused physical harm to the first petitioner and thereafter the first petitioner was residing separately. In my considered view, the evidence adduced by the first petitioner before the trial Court would clinchingly proves the fact that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. There is no say from the respondent as to why he could not take care of the petitioners 2 and 3 who were the minor children. In my considered view, the petitioners before the trial Court were able to prove that the respondent neglected to maintain them. 14) Coming to the means of the petitioners as to whether they are able to maintain themselves, one cannot deny the fact that the petitioners 2 and 3 being minors as on the date of petition are unable to maintain themselves. There is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that she has no source of income whatsoever and she is not at all able to maintain herself. There is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that she has no source of income whatsoever and she is not at all able to maintain herself. P.Ws.2 and 3 supported the cause of the first petitioner in this regard. Though the respondent contended that there was a bank deposit in the name of the first petitioner and she was also telling tuitions and she was doing something as postal agent, but, no piece of paper is filed by the respondent in this regard. The allegations made by the respondent attributing source of income to the first petitioner are not at all probabilized in any way. So, in my considered view, the evidence on record is sufficient to say that all the petitioners were unable to maintain themselves as on the date of filing of the petition. 15) Now, coming to the means of the respondent to maintain the petitioners, it is not in dispute that when the police registered the FIR against him under Section 307 of IPC and when the said fact was brought to the notice of the superior authorities of the respondent may it be by the first petitioner or by the police, he was placed under suspension. His contention is that he was not getting any subsistence allowance in this regard. It is to be noticed that respondent did not examine any departmental people to explain the circumstances under which he was not being paid with any subsistence allowance. Paying subsistence allowance to a government employee when he is placed under suspension is a rule. So, when the respondent pleaded a contrary fact, it is his bounden duty to prove the same by examining proper persons. So, it is a case where the respondent did not file any semblance of proof to show that subsistence allowance was denied to him after he was placed under suspension. So, the thing is that the contention of the respondent that he has no source of income is not tenable. 16) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners and it is his statutory and legal duty to maintain his wife and minor children. There was a justifiable cause to the first petitioner to live separately for the reason that she was subjected to attack by the respondent causing injuries to her. There was a justifiable cause to the first petitioner to live separately for the reason that she was subjected to attack by the respondent causing injuries to her. 17) A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, has rightly considered the entire evidence on record and rightly looked into several angles and arrived at a just conclusion directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the first petitioner, Rs.1,000/- per month to the second petitioner and Rs.1,000/- per month to the third petitioner. 18) Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, categorically established the essential ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. with convincing evidence and the learned Judge in my considered view rightly awarded the maintenance in favour of the petitioners, as such, the impugned order is sustainable under law and facts and the Criminal Revision Case must fail. 19) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.