P LAXMINARAYANA Vs. P LALITHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in maintenance proceedings. The petitioner-husband claims that the order of maintenance passed in M.C.No. 41 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alur, which was confirmed in Criminal Revision Petition 47 of 1990 should be set aside on the ground that in the petition filed by the wife, there is no averment to the affect that she is unable to maintain herself.

(2.) Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, who argued the case of the revision petitioner contends that after the amendment of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is incumbent on the person claiming maintenance to aver that he or she is unable to maintain herself. That is the foundation of the claim and in addition to that, the petitioner should establish refusal or neglect to maintain. He relies upon three decisions in support of the argument.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the petitioner in this case did not make an averment to the effect that she is unable to maintain herself. In paragraph 6 of the petition she stated that she was residing with the brother of her grand-father Ramanjanaiah as shedid not want to go back to her parents' house, who considered her as a burden on them.