SADASIVUNI PUSPA Vs. S DIVAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an order passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada on a petition under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code refusing to grant maintenance mainly on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and petitioner No. 2 is the minor son of the opp. party. Marriage between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party was solemnised on 21-4-68 and in 1970 petitioner No. 1 gave birth to petitioner No. 2 Sometime thereafter the opposite party started ill-treating petitioner No. 1 and refused to give food and clothings to the petitioners and ultimately drove her and her son out of his house on 28-6-71. Petitioner No. 1 finding no other shelter came to the house of her brother who was serving at Rayagada. The opposite party has also in the meantime kept a concubine. According to the petitioners, the opp. party is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1000/- and as they have no other means to maintain themselves, they have claimed maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month for petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month for petitioner No.2. The opposite party contested the application and filed counter denying the allegations of ill-treatment made by the petitioners. According to him, he has not neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners. As the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily left him, and did not come back, he filed an application for restitution of conjugal right in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Visakhapatnam which was allowed and in spite of the order of the Court, petitioner did not come to him. Ultimately a decree of divorce was passed. In view of this the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance. In order to prove the case petition No. 1 has examined herself as P. W. 1 and the opposite party has examined himself as O. P. W. 1.

(3.) It is not disputed in his case that petitioner No. 1 is the wife who has been divorced in the meantime and is entitled to maintenance along with her son, petitioner No. 2. The learned Court has found that there is no legal cruelty as alleged by petitioner No. 1 in view of the finding in the Divorce Case in O. P. No. 201/80, Ext. 1. But from the evidence of petitioner No. 1 and in the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the opposite party neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners.