K V PUSHPAVATHI Vs. K SCSHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Case filed by petitioners 1 and 3 in M.C. No. 6/87 on the file on the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada. This revision is filed aggrieved by the order, dt. 14-7-88 under which the court granted maintenance only for the second petitioner and rejected the claim for maintenance by first and 3rd petitioners.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The first petitioner isthe legally wedded wife of the respondent. They were married on 25-5-74 at Gudivada. They lived together happily for sometime and petitioners 2 & 3 were born to them in wedlock. The respondent is working as helper in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and drawing a salary of Rs. 1,200/-. Till about 1984 the respondent lived with the 1st petitioner at Gudivada. He was addicted to bad vices viz., drinking and debauchery. He kept a woman by name Ramadevi @ Alivelu Mangamma. Then the respondent deserted the 1st petitioner without any reasonable and justifiable cause. He neglected the 1st petitioner and her children and he has not provided anything for their maintenance. The respondent shifted to Machilipatnam along with his concubine and he refused to take the petitioners to live with him. Mediation took place and the respondent refused to give up his concubine and he refused to take back the petitioners and maintain them. Hence this petition for maintenance is filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming Rs. 300/- P.M. for the 1st petitioner, Rs. 200/- P.M. for the 2nd petitioner, and Rs. 150/- P.M. for the 3rd petitioner.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondent regarding the claimfor maintenance by petitioners 1 and 3. The factum of marriage is admitted and it is claimed that till 1978 they lived together and had marital life. He denied the allegation that he is keeping a concubine by name Ramadevi Alivelu Mangamma and that he is residing with her. He claimed that he has no bad habits and that it is the 1st petitioner who is living in adultery with one K. Mohanarao from the year 1983 onwarls. The 3rd petitioner is not the child born to them through the 1st petitioner. He is the child bora to K. Mohanarao as a result of adulterous life. Several times mediation took place. The respondent never had marital hapiness with the 1st petitioner after 1978. When the respondent questioned as to how the 3rd petitioner was born when there was no marital life, neither the 1st petitioner nor her mother gave any reply. The 1st petitioner is living in adultery and the 3rd petitioner is born out of wedlock. In these circumstances petitioners 1 and 3 are not entitled to any maintenance