JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in Maintenance Case No.1 of 2005, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, questioning the order, dated 29.04.2009, whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, allowed the maintenance case filed by the petitioner therein directing the respondent therein and the present revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner therein from the date of petition towards maintenance and Rs.500/- towards costs of the petition. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. The case of the petitioner in M.C.No.1 of 2005, on file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, in brief, is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed at Parvathipuram on 25.03.1993. At the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and Rs.25,000/- towards sare samanulu were given to the respondent. Respondent was also adorned with gold ornaments worth of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner and respondent lived at S. Kota parents' house of the respondent. They lead conjugal life for six months. Thereafter, differences arose. Respondent used to harass the petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. He used to beat her and necked out her. She came to her parents' house and took meager amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and given the same to the respondent. She bears all the harassment till four years back. Respondent intended to kill her by throwing her in well. Petitioner started harassment and in apprehension of death in the hands of the respondent, she came to Parvathipuram. The respondent did not provide any maintenance to her since the year 2000. Petitioner raised disputes before the elders of S. Kota for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. Respondent did not follow the advice of the elders and neglected the petitioner. At the time of marriage, he was doing as LIC agent and Peerless Agent. He was running finance business and getting Rs.20,000/- per month. He has also movable property worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. He is able bodily person to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Hence, she may be granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. At the time of marriage, he was doing as LIC agent and Peerless Agent. He was running finance business and getting Rs.20,000/- per month. He has also movable property worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. He is able bodily person to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Hence, she may be granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. The respondent filed a counter opposing the prayer of the petitioner and denying the averments and his contention according to the counter, in brief, is as follows: (i) On 14.03.1993 the parents of the petitioner along with (1) Nandigama Jyothamma, (2) Nandigama Laxmana Rao, (3) Nandigama Durgavenkata Prasada Rao, (4) Nandigama Ramprasad, (5) Saysankara Naik, Babametta, (6) Baggam Dasaradhi, Vizianagaram, (7) Gandreti Nookaraju, (8) Baggamu Appa Rao, (9) P.Chg. Appa Rao, (10) Nandigam Kusuma, (11) Pakki Appalaraju, (12) Donkada Laxmana Rao, (13) Baggamu Aruna and (14) Nandigam Jagadeeswarao, came to the house of the respondent's father and requested to perform the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. They also made a proposal to perform the marriage of the sister of the respondent, Sarada with the brother of the petitioner by name Ram Prasad, who is a Typist in Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram. They informed that petitioner is working as a Teacher in Government school. So, there was a mutually arranged marriage between both the couples. (ii) On 25.03.1993 at the time of performing the marriage, respondent and his parents noticed that the bride i.e., petitioner was not the girl shown to them at the time of marriage talks on 17.03.1993. So, they raised objection for the marriage, but the petitioner's father and his relatives threatened the respondent and his family members with dire consequences, if the marriage is not performed. So, they forced the respondent to marry the petitioner. The respondent married the petitioner, though he was cheated. After the marriage, petitioner joined with the respondent in conjugal society. At the time of the Nuptial day, respondent and his family members came to know that the petitioner was not a matured girl. Because of the physical deformity, she is unfit for marriage. She further revealed that she was the elder to the age of the respondent and she was not matured. Petitioner lived for two months along with respondent at S. Kota without any intercourse or conjugal life. Because of the physical deformity, she is unfit for marriage. She further revealed that she was the elder to the age of the respondent and she was not matured. Petitioner lived for two months along with respondent at S. Kota without any intercourse or conjugal life. She went to her parents' house at her own without intimating the respondent and his family members. On the other hand, the brother of the petitioner ill-treated the sister of the respondent and demanded additional dowry. A dispute was raised and they were also sent to the court proceedings. (iii) Some of the relatives of the petitioner promised to provide a job to the respondent as an Attendar in Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram and therefore, he paid Rs.30,000/- to them and agreed to pay remaining Rs.50,000/-. However, they are not relevant to this petition. In the year, 1995, he filed H.M.O.P.No.70 of 1995 before Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vizianagaram to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the petitioner herein remained exparte, as such, marriage was dissolved by granting divorce on 20.09.1996. After long delay, now the petitioner filed this application. He has no properties. He has no income. He is working as accounts writer in Kirana shop. He did not lead any conjugal life with the respondent even for a single day. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined before the Court below. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent and Ex.R.1 was marked. 6. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, granted maintenance order directing the Revision Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the first respondent herein. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision Petitioner. 7. Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety? Point:- 8. Smt. K. Anuradha, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that there was no justification on the part of the Court below to order maintenance as the marriage between the Revision Petitioner and the first respondent herein was dissolved in H.M.O.P.No.70 of 1995 on 20.09.1996. Point:- 8. Smt. K. Anuradha, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that there was no justification on the part of the Court below to order maintenance as the marriage between the Revision Petitioner and the first respondent herein was dissolved in H.M.O.P.No.70 of 1995 on 20.09.1996. The first respondent herein did not challenge the said order, as such, it became final. In fact, at the time of marriage alliance, one Usha Rani, who was the sister's daughter of first respondent, was shown as bride, but, at the time of marriage only the petitioner could found that first respondent was made to sit as a bride and though he raised objections, but, he was compelled to marry. The first respondent was unfit for marriage and procreation of children, as such, on her own she deserted the Revision Petitioner and that the maintenance amount granted is excessive, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 9. No arguments are advanced on behalf of the first respondent in spite of opportunity given. 10. Now, this Court has to see whether the first respondent in the capacity of the petitioner in maintenance case before the Court below, was able to prove that she was unable to maintain herself and that the respondent therein neglected to maintain her, though he was having sufficient means. 11. P.W.1 before the Court below is no other than the petitioner, who put-forth the facts in accordance with the pleadings. R.W.1 was the respondent and R.W.2 was the father of respondent, who deposed in tune with their own defence. 12. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the contention of the Revision Petitioner that when there was a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent, there was no justification on the part of the Court below to grant an order of the maintenance. The above said contention deserves no merits, in view of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. When Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides a maintenance order for maintenance of wife, children and parents, the explanation appended thereto i.e., (b) states that wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The above said contention deserves no merits, in view of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. When Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides a maintenance order for maintenance of wife, children and parents, the explanation appended thereto i.e., (b) states that wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. So, though Ex.R.1 discloses that in the divorce proceedings launched by the Revision Petitioner, first respondent remained exparte and an exparte decree came to be passed, but the fact is that the revision petitioner cannot defeat the claim of the first respondent on the ground that she was divorced. So, what all the contentions advanced in this regard deserves no merits. 13. If the said contention is negatived by this Court, now this Court has to see still whether there was any force on the part of the Revision Petitioner to avoid the maintenance order granted in favour of the petitioner in the maintenance case and against him. There is no dispute about the factum of the marriage between the Revision Petitioner and first respondent. There was also no dispute that the sister of the Revision Petitioner was given in marriage to the brother of the first respondent. It appears that both the marriages failed for various reasons. However, the fact is that during the cross examination of P.W.1, she denied the defence of the respondent. She totally denied the case of the respondent that he was cheated by showing another girl at the time of marriage talks. This Court is not able to understand as to how the Revision Petitioner herein, tied tali around the neck of the first respondent herein when she was not a same lady who was shown to the Revision Petitioner at the time of marriage talks. The very defence of the respondent before the trial Court is totally improbable. So, it is a case where even according to him, right from the marriage time i.e., before tying tali, he had developed disinclination against the first respondent herein. If he was cheated in any way, he ought to have challenged the marriage as that of void marriage, but, he did not do so. Even according to him, he obtained only a decree of divorce. So, the marriage that was performed between the Revision Petitioner and first respondent was nothing but a valid marriage. If he was cheated in any way, he ought to have challenged the marriage as that of void marriage, but, he did not do so. Even according to him, he obtained only a decree of divorce. So, the marriage that was performed between the Revision Petitioner and first respondent was nothing but a valid marriage. His contention that he was compelled to tie tali around the neck of first respondent cannot stands to any reason. Further, he did not substantiate his contention that the first respondent was of a lady who was unfit for any conjugal life and she had any physical deformity, etc. So, own pleadings of the respondent goes to show that he exhibited hostile attitude even at the time of marriage against the petitioner before the Court below. In the absence of challenging the marriage as that of void and in the absence of filing a police report that he was cheated, his contention is not tenable. So, it all goes to show that he neglected to maintain the petitioner in the maintenance case. R.Ws.1 and 2 though supported their case, but in the light of the improbabilities referred to above, their evidence is not at all believable. Their evidence is against the human probabilities. Their evidence suffers with any amount of improbability. 14. Hence, in my considered view, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly disbelieved the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. Though the petitioner in the maintenance case could not contest the divorce O.P., as such, though she was divorced, but, she is entitled for maintenance, in view of explanation to Section 125 (b) of Cr.P.C. 15. Now, coming to the means of the Revision Petitioner, he is able bodied person. He did not provide any maintenance to his wife, which is not in dispute. The first respondent herein was unable to maintain herself according to the evidence on record. The respondent in the maintenance case did not prove any income against the petitioner therein. 16. Hence, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly granted an order of maintenance. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said order. 17. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 16. Hence, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly granted an order of maintenance. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said order. 17. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.