Point of Law: Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. mandates that all evidence in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made i.e. in the presence of the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the said case, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and the evidence shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the order dated 29.06.2018 passed in M.C.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, YSR Kadapa District, whereby petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards monthly maintenance to the petitioner therein, the instant Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the above M.C.No.8 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

3. The 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.02.2014 as per the Hindu rites and customs. However, they did not lead marital life and their marriage was not consummated as the petitioner did not show any interest to lead marital life with the 1st respondent. The petitioner is evading to lead marital life with the 1st respondent since the date of the marriage. The 1st respondent informed the same to her parents. The elders advised the petitioner to consult a doctor and the petitioner refused to obey the said advice.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members started harassing the 1st respondent and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. Unable to bear the said harassment, she has lodged a report with the Police and a case in Crime No.17 of 2015 was registered by B.Mattam Police Station against the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner in the presence 1st of the elders agreed to enter into a compromise with the respondent and they have also executed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to return the amount that was paid to the petitioner at the time of marriage and also to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs towards compensation and for the purpose of the livelihood of the 1st respondent. However, they did not pay the said money and cheated the 1st respondent and they entered into the said compromise only to wriggle out from the said criminal case. In the said circumstances, the 1st respondent has no other alternative except to live away from the petitioner. Therefore, she is living with her old aged parents. She has no means to maintain herself.

5. The petitioner has neglected her. He is working as a private employee and earning Rs.60,000/-per month. He also got other immovable properties worth of Rs.10.00 Crores. So, he got sufficient means to maintain the 1st respondent. Therefore, she prayed to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/-p.m. towards maintenance.

6. Her claim was resisted by the revision petitioner. He pleaded that the 1st respondent is not interested in leading marital life with him and she started harassing the petitioner and ill-treating him and his family members. She demanded him to take his share from the immovable properties of his father and to set up a separate residence. When he refused for the same, she grew-wild and subjected him to torture. It is his further case that the 1st respondent and her parents raised a dispute before elders and demanded divorce from him stating that she is not interested in leading marital life with him and she demanded Rs.10.00 Lakhs towards permanent alimony. Accordingly, a memorandum of understanding, dated 03.08.2014, was entered into between both of them and when he is prepared to pay the said sum of money by way of demand draft, she demanded to pay the amount in cash. Thereafter, she raised the claim to Rs.15.00 Lakhs. When he refused to pay the same, she foisted a false criminal case against him. At the intervention of elders, the said matter was settled amicably and a memorandum of understanding was executed whereunder he agreed to pay Rs.8,50,000/-at the time of granting divorce. However, she did not receive the money from him when the same was offered by him. As regards his means is concerned, it is stated that he is doing private service and earning only Rs.10,000/-p.m. which is not sufficient to maintain himself and his family members and that the parents of the 1st respondent ar