Point of law: object behind incorporating Section 125 Cr.P.C. is very laudable and the said provision of law enables the wife, who is unable to maintain herself, legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, who is unable to maintain itself, or a legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter), who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself, and the father or mother, who are unable to maintain themselves, are entitled to claim maintenance from the person who neglects or refuses to maintain, despite having sufficient means

ORDER :

Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M. Bhagyasri, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri S. Venkat Sainadh, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the orders dated 15.06.2013 passed by the Special Judge for trial of the cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, in C.R.P. No. 40 of 2012, whereunder and whereby, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kavali, in M.C. No. 17 of 2009.

3. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present Criminal Petition are as infra :

Respondents 1 to 3 filed M.C. No. 17 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kavali, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., praying for maintenance to them at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month each. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein took place in the year 1996 at Nellore as per the Christian rites and customs. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner herein necked her out, suspecting her fidelity. As evident from the material available on record, it is the case of the petitioner herein that he underwent vasectomy in the year 2005 and the 1st respondent herein got pregnancy in the year 2007.

4. On the basis of the material available on record, learned Magistrate framed the following point for determination :

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for award of maintenance as prayed for or whether she is disentitled for maintenance as she is living in adultery?"

5. During the course of trial, the wife-1st respondent herein examined herself as P.W. 1 and did not file any documents, whereas the husband-petitioner herein, apart from examining himself as R.W. 1, got examined his father-Sri Gollapudi Venkaiahas R.W. 2 and filed Exs. R.1 to R.6 documents in order to substantiate his case. The learned Magistrate, disbelieving the version of the husband-petitioner herein, partly allowed the Maintenance Case, directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent herein and at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month each to the two sons of the petitioner and 1st respondent, i.e., Rajesh and Rakesh, from the date of filing of the petition, apart from granting Rs.10,000/- per month towards shelter and clothing for the 1st respondent and two children and also awarded Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-husband preferred C.R.P. No. 40 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of the offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. The learned Sessions Judge, by way of an order dated 15.06.2013, dismissed the revision, confirming the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate.

7. In the above background, the present Criminal Petition came to be filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the orders passed by the revisional Court and the trial Court.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the orders passed by the trial Court and the revisional Court are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that since the 1st respondent herein is leading adulterous life, the question of granting maintenance does not arise in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that as the petitioner herein had undergone vasectomy operation in the year 2005, the v