ORDER : V.SRINIVAS, J. The present Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner/husband against the judgment dated 08.08.2008 in F.C.O.P.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the learned Family Court, Nellore, wherein the learned judge granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent, under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file this revision as pleaded by the respondent/husband are that: The petitioner and 1st respondent are husband and wife. At the time of marriage, parents of the 1st respondent gave Rs.1,00,000/- of gold and 13 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner/husband. Petitioner/husband used to harass the 1st respondent/wife by beating her with an intention to marry another woman as second marriage. Unable to bear his harassment, the 1st respondent/wife made a complaint and the same was taken in Crime No.83 of 2001 registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as F.C.O.P.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the learned Family Court, Nellore. 4. After full-fledged enquiry, the Family Court, Nellore, vide order dated 08.08.2008, had allowed the F.C.O.P. by granting to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent from the date of the filing of that said petition. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 6. Heard Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel representing Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent- State. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Court below?” 8. Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, submits that the Court below ought to have seen that admittedly the Respondent No.1 was a divorcee and the divorce has been granted at the instance of the Respondent No.1 only in O.P.No.52 of 2001. Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, submits that the Court below ought to have seen that admittedly the Respondent No.1 was a divorcee and the divorce has been granted at the instance of the Respondent No.1 only in O.P.No.52 of 2001. He further submits that the Family Court ought to have seen that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner/husband has no means to pay the maintenance as he does not have any properties. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that since the petitioner/husband and 1st respondent/wife are living separately and the divorce has been granted at the instance of 1st respondent only and hence, the 1st respondent is not entitled for any maintenance. 10. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Santosh Hegde Vs. B.P.Singh J, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3174 and requests this Court to allow this Criminal Revision Case. 11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Court below rightly granted the maintenance by considering all material on record. He further submits that as per the Hon’ble Apex Court, a wife against whom a decree for divorce has been passed on account of her deserting the husband, can claim maintenance. 12. To support his contention, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied on Manoj Kumar Vs. Champa Devi, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 748 and hence, he requests this Court to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case. 13. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties as spouses, birth of male child and now they lived separately. 14. It is needless to say that the necessity for a husband to maintain his wife is rooted in the concept of financial support and responsibility towards one’s spouse. In many cultures and legal systems, including Indian law, it is recognized that a husband has a moral and legal obligation to support his wife, especially during the marriage and even after separation or divorce. 15. The purpose of maintenance is to ensure that the wife’s basic needs are met, including food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare. The amount and duration of maintenance vary depending on individual circumstances and legal jurisdiction. 16. 15. The purpose of maintenance is to ensure that the wife’s basic needs are met, including food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare. The amount and duration of maintenance vary depending on individual circumstances and legal jurisdiction. 16. Now, coming to the present case on hand, it is the foremost contention of the petitioner/husband that respondent/wife had deserted him without any justifiable cause and granting of divorce was also happened at her instance only. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is that since the 1st respondent/wife went for divorce, the petitioner/husband need not to pay any maintenance. To support his contention, he relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Santosh Hegde Vs. B.P.Singh J (stated supra). 17. On the other hand, it is the case of the 1st respondent/wife that petitioner used to harass her both mentally and physically and she was forced to bring additional dowry by the petitioner. R.Ws1 and 2 were cross examined elaborately, and found that the petitioner/husband is having huge properties and are earning good amount as rents besides working as goldsmiths. The 1st respondent is the divorced wife and the 2nd respondent is the son of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is residing in her parents’ house and as per her evidence she is not doing any work and is not having any property of her own. 18. On considering all these aspects, the Court below awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/- to 2nd respondent/son. This Court is of the view awarding Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to 2nd respondent/ is on correct lines. 19. It is relevant to mention that in decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and another, (2020) 19 Supreme Court Cases 342, wherein the relevant para reads as under: “6. This view, which was taken by two-Judge Bench has been confirmed in Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi³ by a three-Judge Bench, though, no specific reasons have been recorded in the judgment. Mr Debal Banerjee urged that the matter requires reconsideration. We are not in agreement with him for two reasons. Firstly, the view taken in the first two judgments has been confirmed by a three-Judge Bench and, therefore, we cannot refer it to a larger Bench. Mr Debal Banerjee urged that the matter requires reconsideration. We are not in agreement with him for two reasons. Firstly, the view taken in the first two judgments has been confirmed by a three-Judge Bench and, therefore, we cannot refer it to a larger Bench. Even otherwise, this view has been consistently taken by this Court and the said view is in line with both the letter and spirit of Cr.P.C. 7. No doubt, as urged by Mr Debal Banerjee, Explanation II to Section 125 CrPC by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and, therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub-section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated as a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that even after divorce she is not willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of Mr Debal Banerjee.” 20. From the above authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is made clear that even though the wife deserted her husband that will not be made a ground for the husband to seek for divorce. So that the husband cannot deny the maintenance payable to her though she is not willing to live with him. 21. It is also relevant to make a mention about another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686, wherein the relevant para is extracted hereunder: 47. Thus, both 'financial security' as well as 'security of residence' of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced. 21. It is also relevant to make a mention about another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686, wherein the relevant para is extracted hereunder: 47. Thus, both 'financial security' as well as 'security of residence' of Indian women have to be protected and enhanced. That would truly empower such Indian women who are referred to as 'homemakers' and who are the strength and backbone of an Indian family which is the fundamental unit of the Indian society which has to be maintained and strengthened. It goes without saying that a stable family which is emotionally connected and secure gives stability to the society for, it is within the family that precious values of life are learnt and built. It is these moral and ethical values which are inherited by a succeeding generation which would go a long way in building a strong Indian society which is the need of the hour. It is needless to observe that a strong Indian family and society would ultimately lead to a stronger nation. But, for that to happen, women in the family have to be respected and empowered! 22. From the above, it can be understood that the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborated the importance of a women in the Indian Society as they are referred as backbone of Indian society. It further can be understood from the above that it is these moral and ethical values which are inherited by a succeeding generation which would go a long way in building a strong Indian society. 23. It is settled law that in view of the clear and cogent findings on facts by the Court below and the authoritative pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court (cited supra), this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below and there is no material before this Court to discard findings recorded by the Court below. 24. All these facts go to show that the Court below rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner bound to pay the monthly maintenance and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Court below in appreciating the material on record. 24. All these facts go to show that the Court below rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner bound to pay the monthly maintenance and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Court below in appreciating the material on record. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by the Court below in awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.1,000/- to the 2nd respondent son by the petitioner/husband. 25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 08.08.2008 in F.C.O.P.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Family Court, Nellore. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.