( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 29-3-1995 of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal R. P. No. 34 of 1994 on his file modifying the order of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, dated 25-3-1994 in M. C. No. 8 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE first revision petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. The revision petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are their sons. For the purpose of convenience the first revision petitioner and the respondent are referred to as wife and husband in this case. The Revision Petitioners filed M. C. No. 8 of 1991 under section 125 (1) A and B of Cr. P. C. for claiming maintenance at Rs. 400. 00 for the wife and at Rs. 200. 00 each to the sons from the date of petition on the ground that the respondent-husband deserted his wife and children and that they were subjected to harassment by demanding her to bring more dowry and that the husband also beat her mercilessly and drove her out of the house and that the husband has got sufficient means to provide maintenance. On the other hand, respondent-husband resisted the claim of the petitioners and his main contention was that the petitioner-wife was living in adultery and as such she is not entitled for the maintenance.

( 3 ) TO substantiate their respective contentions PWs 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and no documents were marked. On behalf of respondent-husband RWs 1 to 7 were examined and Ex. R1 was marked.

( 4 ) ON consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate disbelieved the version of the husband that the first petitioner-wife was living in adultery and held that he deserted his wife and children and failed to maintain them, though having sufficient means to provide maintenance. Hence, he allowed the petition and granted maintenance @ Rs. 200. 00 to the wife and Rs. 150. 00 each to the children.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by it, the husband preferred Criminal R. P. No. 34 of 1991. The learned Sessions Judge on reappraisal of the evidence on record held that the husband has established that his wife is living in adultery, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance to the wife, but confirmed the maintenance as ordered by the lower Court in respect of two children @ Rs. 150. 00 per month each. Aggrieved by that, the wife and the children have come up with this Revision.

( 6 ) THE respondent-husband failed to appear in this Court in spite of the notice served on him.

( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor and perused the lower Court record.

( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the two Revision Petitioners are their legitimate children born out of their wedlock. It is also not disputed that after their marriage they lived for some time at Yadagirigutta which is the native place of the respondent and thereafter they shifted their residence to Hyderabad and after staying for about five or six years they once again shifted to Yadagirigutta and they lived happily for some time at Yadagirigutta and out of their wed-lock these two children born to them. Admittedly, the wife and children are residing separately from the husband since 1990. As seen from the impugned order, the plea of the husband is that his wife is not entitled for maintenance as she is living in adultery. To prove his case that she is living in adultery, the husband examined RWs 1 to 7 and marked Ex. R1. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have been carried away by the oral testimony of RWs 1 to 4 and 7 and so held that the respondent has established that his wife is living in adultery with one Mitta Raju of Yadagirigutta. The learned Counsel for the Revision petitioners took me through the evidence of the respondent 1 to 4 and 7. The evidence of RWs 5 and 6 have not spoken to anything with regard to the alleged wife indulging in adulte