A divorced woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as per Explanation (b) to the section, which includes divorced women as wives.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in Maintenance Case No.1 of 2005, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, questioning the order, dated 29.04.2009, whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, allowed the maintenance case filed by the petitioner therein directing the respondent therein and the present revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner therein from the date of petition towards maintenance and Rs.500/- towards costs of the petition.

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

3. The case of the petitioner in M.C.No.1 of 2005, on file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram, in brief, is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed at Parvathipuram on 25.03.1993. At the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and Rs.25,000/- towards sare samanulu were given to the respondent. Respondent was also adorned with gold ornaments worth of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner and respondent lived at S. Kota parents' house of the respondent. They lead conjugal life for six months. Thereafter, differences arose. Respondent used to harass the petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. He used to beat her and necked out her. She came to her parents' house and took meager amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- and given the same to the respondent. She bears all the harassment till four years back. Respondent intended to kill her by throwing her in well. Petitioner started harassment and in apprehension of death in the hands of the respondent, she came to Parvathipuram. The respondent did not provide any maintenance to her since the year 2000. Petitioner raised disputes before the elders of S. Kota for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. Respondent did not follow the advice of the elders and neglected the petitioner. At the time of marriage, he was doing as LIC agent and Peerless Agent. He was running finance business and getting Rs.20,000/- per month. He has also movable property worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. He is able bodily person to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Hence, she may be granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month.

4. The respondent filed a counter opposing the prayer of the petitioner and denying the averments and his contention according to the counter, in brief, is as follows:

(i) On 14.03.1993 the parents of the petitioner along with (1) Nandigama Jyothamma, (2) Nandigama Laxmana Rao, (3) Nandigama Durgavenkata Prasada Rao, (4) Nandigama Ramprasad, (5) Saysankara Naik, Babametta, (6) Baggam Dasaradhi, Vizianagaram, (7) Gandreti Nookaraju, (8) Baggamu Appa Rao, (9) P.Chg. Appa Rao, (10) Nandigam Kusuma, (11) Pakki Appalaraju, (12) Donkada Laxmana Rao, (13) Baggamu Aruna and (14) Nandigam Jagadeeswarao, came to the house of the respondent's father and requested to perform the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. They also made a proposal to perform the marriage of the sister of the respondent, Sarada with the brother of the petitioner by name Ram Prasad, who is a Typist in Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram. They informed that petitioner is working as a Teacher in Government school. So, there was a mutually arranged marriage between both the couples.

(ii) On 25.03.1993 at the time of performing the marriage, respondent and his parents noticed that the bride i.e., petitioner was not the girl shown to them at the time of marriage talks on 17.03.1993. So, they raised objection for the marriage, but the petitioner's father and his relatives threatened the respondent and his family members with dire consequences, if the marriage is not performed. So, they forced the respondent to marry the petitioner. The respondent married th