LAWS(APH)-2008-3-37

NAGIREDDY SAI KUMARI Vs. NAGIREDDI VARA NAGESWARA RAO

Decided On March 31, 2008
NAGIREDDY SAI KUMARI Appellant
V/S
NAGIREDDI VARA NAGESWARA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 03-03-2006 in M. C. No. 51 of 2003, on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner herein under 125 Cr. P. C. , seeking maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month, was dismissed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Records are perused.

(3.) THE petitioner filed M. C. No. 51 of 2003 alleging that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 16-02-1997, as per Hindu customs and rites and she is the second wife of the respondent, the first wife having died seven years prior to the marriage of the petitioner and at the time of marriage eight sovereigns of gold and one acre of land was given to her towards pasupukumkuma, that six months after marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner demanding her to sell away the one acre of land and also demanding Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. It is further alleged that on 22-03-2002 the respondent came home in a drunken state and beat her severely and the petitioner fearing repeated assaults on her, went to the house of her sister and that the respondent came there and again beat her causing bleeding injuries and obtained her signatures forcibly to the effect that she was voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home. The petitioner gave a complaint to the police and the same was registered as Cr. No. 341 of 2002 and during pendency of the said case, she joined the respondent and again she was forced to leave the company of the respondent on 10-02-2003, as there was no change in the attitude of the respondent. She alleged that the respondent never cared to provide maintenance to her though he was working as Welder in s. C. Railways and drawing Rs. 10,000/-p. m. She, therefore, sought maintenance of rs. 2,500/- per month on the ground that she has no means of livelihood. The respondent filed a counter in the M. C alleging that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife and she was already married to another person, which marriage was subsisting. He would further contend that as the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife, she is not entitled for any maintenance.