P BAYAMMA Vs. PETETI MARIYADASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner-wife assails the revisional order dated 22-7-1997 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl. Revision No. 50/96 setting aside the order passed in M.C. No. 2/95 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali granting monthly maintenance at Rs. 300.00 to her.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as follows : (i) The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred as respondent). Their marriage was solemnised about 25 years ago. They begot 3 daughters after their wed-lock and they are Usha Rani (RW-2), Prameela (PW-4) and Srilatha RW-3). They performed their marriages and they are living with their husbands at Hyderabad. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 2/95 under S. 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband, the respondent herein seeking monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00. The reasons alleged for her separate maintenance are : (1) The respondent used to beat her severely after consuming alcohol and while she was bed-ridden, after undergoing major operation in August, 1993, the respondent failed to provide any medical aid and food to her. (2) The respondent brought her concubine by name Pamulamma and used to have sexual intercourse with her in her presence and kept her in his house. (3) On 5-1-1994, the respondent with the assistance of his concubine, tried to squeeze her neck and that somehow saved herself and left for her brother's house. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner. He admitted the marital relationship with the petitioner and birth of 3 daughters and denied all other allegations. It is his positive plea that the petitioner herself deserted his company and that she is leading adulterous life with her second son-in-law at Hyderabad. (ii) To prove their respective contentions, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 and P-2. On behalf of the respondent, RWs. 1 to 3 were examined and no documents were marked. The petitioner got herself examined as PW-1. PWs. 2 and 3 are the brothers of the petitioner and PW-4 is the 2nd daughter of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent got himself examined as RW-1. The 1st and 3rd daughters of the petitioner and the respondent were examined as RWs. 2 and 3 respectively. Ex. P-1 is the office copy of the registered notice issued to the respondent on behalf of the petitioner. Ex. P-2 is the returned registered cover addressed to the respondent. (iii) The trial Court in para 12 of its order held thus :

(3.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge seems to have been carried away by the evidence of RWs. 2 and 3 who are no other than the eldest and the youngest daughters of the petitioner and the respondent and that there is no reason for both of them (RWs. 2 and 3) to depose that their mother i.e., the petitioner herein is living in adultery having illicit contacts with her own second son-in-law and that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge failed to evaluate their evidence in the light of other circumstances in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the said allegation of adultery has been disputed by PW-4 who is her second daughter, with whose husband the petitioner is said to have illicit contacts. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently contends that petitioner's own daughters have come forward and deposed about the adulterous life of the petitioner with her own second son-in-law and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony and that no daughter will come forward and attribute unchastity to her mother unless the fact is true. The learned counsel for the respondent thus contends that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance under sub-clause (iv) of S. 125, Cr.P.C. as she is living in adultery.