MALLADI SUVARCHALA Vs. MALLADI NAGA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-wife, having been aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2012 of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali, in Crl.R.P.No.56 of 2012 in reversing and remanding the order dated 22.03.2012 in M.C.No.3 of 2010 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali.

(2.) The revision petitioner-wife filed a case vide M.C.No.3 of 2010 for maintenance before the trial Court against her husband-revision respondent with the contentions that her marriage with the revision respondent was performed on 15.11.2002 and they lived happily for a period of 3 to 4 months and in the meanwhile the petitioner suffered from back pain and taking treatment for the same, on that reason, revision respondent and his parents harassed her saying she is not fit for marital life but her parents suppressed the same and performed their marriage, that due to unbearable harassment, the petitioner once consumed sleeping pills and tried to commit suicide in the month of March, 2004 and the respondent immediately met her at the hospital and requested her parents to keep her for a few days and later he did not turn up, that the respondent is working as a Senior Medical Representative and drawing a salary of Rs. 23,000/- also having house property at Madhuranagar, Vijayawada and also having landed property at Yembalem village, so the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioner but petitioner is not having any means to maintain herself. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter admitting their marriage contended that the petitioner addicted to sleeping pills even before her marriage for her pain, though the respondent tried to bring back his wife, but in vain, that the respondent is working as a salesman and earning only Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month, that the petitioner is working as a music teacher in Tenali and is earning Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-per month, hence to dismiss the petition. That on hearing both sides, the trial Court partly allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner at Rs. 2,000/- from the date of filing the petition with costs of Rs. 500/- and the petitioner is directed to open a Saving Bank Account with any Nationalised Bank and intimate the bank account number to the respondent to enable him to pay the maintenance amount by remitting it to the said account, holding that the respondent failed to prove that prior to consulting Dr.Purna Chandra Rao after marriage, the petitioner was in the habit of taking sleeping pills for her pain and even the respondent failed to examine Dr.Purna Chandra Rao, though Court issued hand over summons on the request of the respondent but produced a certificate issued by the said doctor which did not show the petitioner suffered from back pain due to less of one limb and it was from her childhood, and even the petitioner submitted that she suffered from back pain due to pumping bore well by hand for which she consumed over dosage of sleeping pills, due to which she admitted in the hospital except that there is no other dispute between herself and her husband and for the back pain only the respondent is harassing her.

(3.) The revision-respondent having been aggrieved by the order of the trial Judge, preferred Crl.R.P.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Guntur at Tenali, who allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the trial Judge in M.C.No.3 of 2010 and remanded the same for fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce medical evidence holding that unless medical evidence is adduced, it cannot be said whether 1st respondent was born with congenital deformity of sacralisation of 5th vertebra or she was suffering from back pain due to heavy work at the residence of husband and it is premature to express any opinion on this point.