T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 08.06.2009 passed in Crl.R.P.No.110 of 2007 by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, wherein and whereby the order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapur in M.C.No.38 of 2006 was confirmed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below misconstrued the scope of Sub-Section 4 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition. He would further submit that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the petitioner left the matrimonial home because of the harassment meted out by the respondent and his family members. It is his further submission that the Courts below failed to appreciate that Talaqnama dated 14.09.2006 has no legal sanctity for non-following the procedure contemplated under Mahomedan Law. He further submitted that the findings of the courts below are perverse as the same are not based on any material. He further submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner intimating the pronouncement of Talaq by the respondent.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court shall not lightly interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are supported by oral and documentary evidence more so legally admissible evidence. He further submitted that it is not a fit case to quash the impugned order by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The facts of the case that led to the filing of the present petition are succinctly as follows:

5. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. from the respondent inter-alia stating that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 22.01.2006 as per Muslim rites and caste customs. As per the allegations made in the petition, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.2.00 lakhs of cash and 12 tulas of gold to the respondent at the time of marriage towards dowry. Immediately after the marriage, she joined the respondent to lead marital life. The respondent and his family members subjected her to cruelty and hence she lodged complaint with the Station House Officer, Mahila Police station, Ananthapur, who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.26 of 2006 under Section 498-A of IPC. Two months prior to the filing of the petition for maintenance the respondent necked out the petitioner from matrimonial home without honouring the advice of the elders. Several panchayats held to settle the dispute between the parties but in vain. The respondent is a government employee and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence the petition.

6. The respondent filed counter admitting the factum of marriage, inter-alia, contending that the petitioner stayed in the house of the respondent for a period of ten days only. The petitioner insisted the respondent for setting up of separate family for which the respondent refused. Therefore, the petitioner left the house of the respondent. On 06.05.2006 the respondent got issued a notice to the petitioner requesting her to join with him. On 18.5.2006 the petitioner executed an agreement in the presence of the elders agreeing that she will not insist for separate family and join with him. On 14.8.2006 the petitioner lodged a false complaint to the Station House Officer, Mahila Police station, Ananthapur who in turn registered it as a case in Cr.No.26 of 2006 against the respondent and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Having no other alternative, the respondent pronounced Talaq in the presence of elders on 14.09.2006 and sent notice to the petitioner informing pronouncement of talaq along with demand drafts, which was returned as un-served. The petitioner is a divorced woman and hence she is not entitled to cla