POLA VENKATESWARLU Vs. POLA LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the Order dated 17-06-2003, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in Criminal Revision Petition No. 35 of 2002, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the Order passed in M.C.No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Nandyal.

(2.) The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent. The second respondent is their son. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed M.C.No. 12 of 2001 claiming maintenance. The petitioner-husband filed counter resisting the claim of his wife and son. The wife, besides examining herself as P.W. 1, examined K. Eswaramma as P.W. 2 and P. Shankaraiah as P.W. 3. On behalf of the husband, besides examining himself as R.W. 1, examined one Pula Salanna as R.W. 2 and marked Exs. D-1 to D-4. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence on record and on hearing counsel for both the parties, allowed the M.C. partly and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month each to the wife and son. Assailing the Order passed in M.C., the husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 35 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reconsidering the material placed on record and on hearing counsel for both the parties, dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the Order passed in M.C.No. 12 of 2001. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the husband to quash the order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife and the son (respondent Nos. 1 and 2).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner- husband submits that the petitioner-husband obtained divorce through the process of Court on the ground that the first respondent-wife has been living in adultery and therefore, the first respondent-wife is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner-husband. He further submits that the first respondent-wife violated the Order passed by the Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No. 294 of 1994 by not handing over the custody of the second respondent-son and therefore, the first respondent-wife is not entitled to claim any maintenance on behalf of the minor son (second respondent).