MEDURI SURYAPRAKASH RAO Vs. MEDURI SYMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition in M.C.No. 62 of 2001 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent, seeking maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month from the petitioner, was dismissed on 13-09-2002 by the learned Magistrate, on the ground that respondent came to court at a belated stage. Revision in Crl.R.P.No. 113 of 2002 preferred by the first respondent, questioning the order of dismissal, was allowed by the impugned order by the Sessions Court. Hence, this petition, questioning the order in revision.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, since first respondent had voluntarily left the society of the petitioner as long back as in 1986, and addressed a letter in Ex.R-1 to the petitioner that she is not interested in living with him, and since first respondent is able to maintain herself from over fifteen years prior to the filing of the M.C., by running or working in a Telephone booth, the Sessions Court was in error in allowing the revision, and awarding maintenance to the first respondent against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for first respondent is that since the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known first respondent could not initiate the proceedings earlier, and since the petitioner is living with another woman, there is no scope for the first respondent living with the petitioner and since the Sessions Court gave cogent reasons for allowing the revision, there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned.

(3.) The fact that the petitioner and the first respondent were living separately from 1986 onwards is not denied or disputed. Mainly on the ground that the first respondent does not have sufficient means to maintain herself, and failed to establish that there is neglect or refusal on the part of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the first respondent. Sessions Court on the basis of Ex.R-3 photograph, which is admitted by the petitioner as R.W. 1, and disbelieving theory of the petitioner that first respondent left the house with an amount of Rs. 75,000/- taken as hand loan by him for purchase of a house, and observing that first respondent is being maintained by her parents during all the years held that first respondent does have reasonable grounds for staying away from the petitioner and is entitled to seek maintenance from the petitioner, and since the telephone in the booth, which is said to berun or in which she is employed, is disconnected, question of the first respondent being able to maintain herself does not arise, awarded maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to the first respondent against the petitioner.