A husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and child if the wife is unable to maintain herself and the husband has sufficient means to maintain them.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision Petitioner, who was the respondent in M.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short), challenging the order, dated 12.01.2009, whereunder the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, in maintenance case filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, ordered the Revision Petitioner herein, who is the respondent in maintenance case, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each petitioner.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Court below is as follows:

The respondent married the first petitioner on 28.08.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. Second petitioner was born to them on 10.10.2005. The respondent is drunkard and indulged in immoral activities. He demanded Rs.50,000/- by way of additional dowry and he used to beat first petitioner. He used to threaten her to kill. The relatives of respondent also used to beat her. The respondent stopped paying household expenses and when first petitioner demanded money on 10.06.2007, the respondent threatened to kill her. So first petitioner and her daughter came out of the house of respondent. All the efforts by relatives of first petitioner proved futile. The brother and mother of first petitioner are in utter state of poverty. The respondent had lands and house in Malkatipalli village and he is working as Inspector in R & B Department and he gets Rs.12,000/- per month apart from Rs.1,00,000/- from his landed property. Hence, this petition.

4. The averments in the counter are briefly as follows:

The respondent's father gave voluntary retirement in 2000 for the benefit of respondent. Respondent has 4 sisters. The respondent was given the job of his father. The petitioner started harassing the respondent to shift his family to Rajampet town. But the respondent did not agree. The petitioner was ill-treating his parents. Finally, the family was shifted to Rajampet. The petitioner is adamant and she used to fight with the respondent. The petitioner is follower of Christianity. The petitioner is quarrel some lady. Without informing him, she used to go to her parents house. The respondent used to give monthly expenditure to petitioner. The petitioner does not want peaceful marital life. She did not allow the relatives of respondent to their house. The respondent made several attempts for reunion of his wife and child. The lands of respondent are D.K.R. lands. He is getting Rs.6,000/- and odd per month. There is no reason for her living separately. He never threatened her to kill. Hence to dismiss the petition.

5. During the course of enquiry before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, on behalf of the petitioners P.W.1 was examined and on behalf the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined.

6. The learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, allowed the maintenance case directing the respondent therein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to each petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful respondent filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

7. Now, in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order, dated 12.01.2009 in M.C.No.53 of 2008 suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said order?

Point:-

8. Sri R. Arun Kumar, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would contend that the first petitioner in the maintenance case i.e., wife of the Revision Petitioner herein was of a quarrelsome woman, who used to pick up the quarrel with present Revision Petitioner and his parents from the very beginning, as such, she left th