DAMATHOTI MANGAMMA Vs. DOMATHOTI YEDUKONDALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix which led to filing this revision is that the petitioner, who is, admittedly, the wife of the 1st respondent, and her son filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Macheria under S. 125, Cr. P.C. seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- and the same was numbered as M.C. No. 4 of 1998. After examining PWs. 1 to 5 on behalf of the petitioner and her son and examining R.Ws. 1 to 5 on behalf of the respondent, the trial Court held that the petitioner and her son are entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- respectively.

(2.) Against the said order, the 1st respondent herein filed Crl. R. P. No. 156 of 1998 and the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur while allowing the maintenance awarded to the son, disallowed the maintenance in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned and thus allowed the Crl. R.P. No. 156 of 1998 partly. Hence, this revision by the petitioner, who is the wife of the 1st respondent herein.

(3.) The main point that was considered by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge while disallowing the maintenance is that O.P. 79 of 1997 seeking restitution of conjugal rights filed by the 1st respondent herein was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District and in view of the law laid down in Sulaxmi Bai v. Karre Sridhar, 1993 (2) Andh LT (Crl) 337 a husband need not maintain the wife, who voluntarily deserted him without reasonable excuse.