ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is respondent in M.C.No.216 of 2008, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, challenging the judgment, dated 10.11.2009 in the said maintenance case where under the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, allowed the said maintenance case by directing the respondent, who is the Revision Petitioner herein, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.900/- to the second petitioner in the maintenance case from the date of filing of M.C. i.e., 10.09.2008. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be described before the Court below for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners in M.C.No.216 of 2008, on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, in brief, according to the averments of the petitioners are as follows: (i) The respondent is the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner. On 19.08.2004 the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent took place at St. West Parish Church, Guntur, as per Christian customs and usages. By then, the respondent was working as Tutor in Computer Training Centre called as TRS Institute, Lakshmipuram, 7th Line, Guntur. The parents of the first petitioner presented cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and further customary presentations and household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage. (ii) The marriage is consummated and the first petitioner joined with the respondent at Prakash Nagar, where they lived for some time. Subsequently, they shifted to a rented house in Seetharam Nagar, 3rd line and resided there together. During the wedlock, they are blessed with a son, David Rohit, on 29.11.2005. Afterwards, respondent developed aversion towards the first petitioner and harassed her physically and mentally without any reasonable cause. He beat the first petitioner in the presence of his mother and other family members. The family members and the respondent used to support his attitude towards the first petitioner. (iii) The respondent also set up a new demand for money to start computer business at Guntur. The first petitioner learnt that the respondent is addicted to bad vices and he used to sell away household articles given to him at the time of marriage. The family members and the respondent used to support his attitude towards the first petitioner. (iii) The respondent also set up a new demand for money to start computer business at Guntur. The first petitioner learnt that the respondent is addicted to bad vices and he used to sell away household articles given to him at the time of marriage. On account of the harassment made by the respondent, the first petitioner’s father gave Rs.25,000/- to start the business but respondent did not change his behavior. In January, 2006 on one day, he beat the first petitioner indiscriminately and necked out her from the house in the midnight. Hence, she went to her parents’ house. Later, they tried for conciliation, but, in vain. Respondent developed illegal intimacy with one K. Kamala Kumari and the first petitioner questioned the respondent about his illegal contact. He simply admitted his illegal relation in the presence of elders but did not change his attitude. In spite of several mediations, respondent did not agree to take back the petitioners. (iv) The respondent completed B.E. Degree and he is working as a Tutor in TRS Computer Training Centre. He is drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. He has two portions of RCC permanent building worth of Rs.9,00,000/- and he is drawing rentals of Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to receive towards monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each and the respondent is liable to pay the same. 4. The respondent before the Court below got filed a counter denying the case of the petitioners and his contention, in brief, is that he is not a Christian and he is Vaddera by caste of Hindu Community. Without giving Baptism to the respondent, his marriage was performed with the first petitioner. No cash and other presentations were given to him at the time of marriage as alleged. On the date of marriage the first petitioner spent few hours at the parents’ house of the respondent and later she did not step into her in-laws house. Both the first petitioner and the respondent lived together happily as wife and husband for shorter period of 7 or 8 months that too at the house of first petitioner. Thereafter, they shifted to a rented house at Prakash Nagar. Both the first petitioner and the respondent lived together happily as wife and husband for shorter period of 7 or 8 months that too at the house of first petitioner. Thereafter, they shifted to a rented house at Prakash Nagar. During the short stay, the first petitioner became pregnant and on the pretext of confinement, she left from the company of the respondent and went to her parents’ house. She gave birth to the second petitioner. Thereafter, she did not return back and she did not care the welfare of the respondent. So, the respondent suffered a lot mentally and physically and became psychiatric patient. The first petitioner disliked the respondent from the very beginning. He never neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners. The attributions made against him by the first respondent that he has illicit intimacy with K. Kamala Kumari are all false. He is not getting income as alleged by the first petitioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, on behalf of the petitioners P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. Respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and further examined R.W.2. 6. In fact, the present petitioner also filed D.O.P. No.334 of 2008 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, with the selfsame averments in which the respondent therein contested the same. Learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, by virtue of a common order, dated 10.11.2009, allowed the maintenance case and further allowed D.O.P. No.334 of 2008 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner in D.O.P.No.334 of 2008 and respondent therein. It is altogether a different aspect that though the order in M.C.No.216 of 2008 and D.O.P.No.334 of 2008 is common, but, the petitioner challenged the order in M.C.No.216 of 2008 by way of Criminal Revision Case as provided under law. This Court is not concerned with the appeal, if any, before the Division Bench against the order in D.O.P.No.334 of 2008. 7. In the light of the above, the simple question which falls for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated 10.11.2009 in so far as M.C.No.216 of 2008, on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur is concerned, whether it suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment? POINT:- 8. POINT:- 8. The learned counsel, Sri P.V. Vivek, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the impugned judgment is not valid under law. Though the petitioner had no means to pay maintenance, but, the learned Judge directed him to pay maintenance, which is beyond his capacity. The petitioner was un-employee and has no source of income and he is also taking treatment, as such, he had no means to pay any maintenance. P.W.1 before the Court below did not prove the income of the present petitioner. Though the first respondent was educated and capable of earning, but, the learned Judge ordered the revision petitioner to pay maintenance which is erroneous. He would contend that the order of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Guntur, is not valid under law and facts, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 9. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the Public Prosecutor i.e., third respondent, represented that the third respondent is only a formal party and the matter may be disposed on merits. 10. No arguments were advanced on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 11. P.W.1 before the Court below is no other than the first petitioner in the maintenance case and the first respondent herein. P.W.2 is neighbor, who conducted mediations to resolve the disputes between the first petitioner and the respondent. P.W.3 is the father of the first petitioner. R.W.1 is the respondent. He examined R.W.2 in support of his case. 12. P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit put forth the facts in tune with her case. The chief examination affidavit of P.W.2 is supporting the case of the first petitioner. P.W.3 is father of the first petitioner deposed in supporting the case of the first petitioner. 13. As the maintenance case in M.C.No.216 of 2008 filed before the Court below was under Section 125 Cr.P.C., now this Court has to see whether the evidence adduced by the petitioners in the maintenance case are sufficient to say that the respondent in the maintenance case in spite of having means to maintain the petitioners, neglected to maintain them and that the petitioners were unable to maintain themselves. 14. There is no dispute about the factum of marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent in the maintenance case. 14. There is no dispute about the factum of marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent in the maintenance case. There was also no dispute that during the wedlock the second petitioner was born to the first petitioner and the respondent. The allegations made by the petitioners were that from the beginning respondent developed aversion towards the first petitioner and he used to beat her in the presence of his parents and that he developed illicit intimacy with named woman and that the parents of the first petitioner presented huge amounts at the time of marriage and also later and that the respondent necked out the first petitioner and later did not allow her to join with him. On the other hand, the respondent before the Court below denied the allegations raised against him. 15. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he spoken about the performance of marriage of her with the respondent in accordance with the Christian customs and usages and their staying and that they are blessed with a child and the respondent used to demand further dowry and harassed her in several ways and he used to beat her indiscriminately and he further developed illegal intimacy with a named lady and he is addicted to all bad vices, etc. P.W.1 in her chief examination affidavit put forth the facts in tune with the averments in the petition. 16. During the course of cross examination, she denied that except the date of marriage, she did not visit the house of the respondent. She categorically denied the case of the respondent in several ways. The respondent got elicited some answers from her in cross examination that they given double cot, T.V., cooking vessels, etc., at the time of marriage and these articles are now with the respondent. One Bolla Hanumantha Rao and Bandari Anjaneyulu tried for settlement, but, in vain. The respondent is now residing in Prakash Nagar along with his kept mistress. 17. It is to be noticed that P.W.2 claimed to be a mediator and he spoken about the factum of marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent in accordance with Christian rites and customs and about the presentation of cash and other articles and that he came to know about the physical and mental harassment to the first petitioner and then he mediated the issue, but, in vain. P.W.2 is no other than Bolla Hanumantha Rao, whose name was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during cross examination. 18. P.W.3 is the father of the first petitioner and his chief examination affidavit is in tune with the case of the first petitioner. 19. As seen from the cross examination part of R.W.1, he categorically admitted that after 15 days prior to the marriage, the parents of his wife paid Rs.1,20,000/- to his brother for marriage expenses. Later, prior to the marriage, they have given Rs.1,18,000/- to his brother. Due to some problems, he stayed in the house of his in-laws till he came out. He denied that since the date of marriage, he was showing dislike towards his wife and illtreated her. He admitted that he stayed in the house of his inlaws for about one or two months after the birth of his son and later he left. Thereafter, due to health problems, he did not visit their house. He did not provide any maintenance to his wife during that period. 20. It is to be noticed that it is the specific case of the respondent that after P.W.1 left to her parents’ house to give birth to a child, she did not come back. His contention in the counter was as if he did not see the first petitioner after she gave birth to a child, but, during the cross examination, he admitted that even he stayed in the house of his in-laws, even after P.W.1 gave birth to a child for several months. This proves the theory of the case of the petitioners. He categorically admitted that after he came out from the house of his in-laws, he did not visit the petitioners at any point of time. Apart from this, he admitted during the cross examination about the presentation of cash as averred by the first petitioner in her maintenance case and her chief examination affidavit. He got elicited negative answers in cross examination as to the presentation of the double cot, TV and cooking vessels. All these goes to show that the evidence on record categorically proves the neglect attributed against the respondent. The admissions made by R.W.1 in cross examination categorically prove the fact that he has no definite stand. In his counter, he did not plead the real facts as to when actually the first petitioner left from his company. All these goes to show that the evidence on record categorically proves the neglect attributed against the respondent. The admissions made by R.W.1 in cross examination categorically prove the fact that he has no definite stand. In his counter, he did not plead the real facts as to when actually the first petitioner left from his company. On the other hand, it is he, who resided along with the first petitioner after she gave birth to the second petitioner in his in-laws house. All these admissions made by R.W.1 in cross examination are not pleaded in the counter. So, the admissions made by him in the cross examination throws any amount of doubt about the bonafidies in his case. 21. Apart from this, the crucial allegation against the respondent is that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Kamala Kumari and used to harass the first petitioner. It is elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 during cross examination that when he went for mediation, he found one Kamala Kumari in the house. So, when the testimony of P.W.2 was tested in cross examination, he deposed the facts which are convincing. There is corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 from the evidence of P.W.2 as well as from the evidence of P.W.3. In my considered view, the evidence on record categorically proves the fact that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. 22. There is no dispute that the second petitioner being a child was unable to maintain himself. According to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the first petitioner had no source of income. The respondent did not prove contrary. Apart from this, the admitted income of the respondent even at the time of marriage as he was working as a Tutor as of Rs.4,500/- per month and he deposed the same in his cross examination. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent was drawing Rs.8,000/- per month. Though the petitioners did not file any proof in this regard, but, the moment the respondent admitted that he was working in a private company as on the date of marriage, he was supposed to file proof by producing his salary certificate, but, he did not file his salary certificate. Without proper proof, he put forward a contention that he was terminated from the job after the marriage. Even it is not substantiated. Without proper proof, he put forward a contention that he was terminated from the job after the marriage. Even it is not substantiated. So, the evidence on record goes to show that the respondent was not interested before the Court below in proving his monthly income. Even otherwise, the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.900/- to the second petitioner, which was granted, was not at all excessive even considering the admitted income of the respondent. 23. Having looked into the overall facts and circumstances and having gone through the evidence on record and the judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 10.11.2009 in M.C.No.216 of 2008, does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and I see no reason to interfere with the same. 24. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.