Maintenance can be awarded only to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. The Court has to find out what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family.

JUDGMENT

Subba Reddy Satti, J. - This criminal revision case was filed by husband under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') against the order dated 04.04.2009 in M.C. No. 110 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision are referred to as they were arrayed in M.C. No. 110 of 2008.

3. Petitioner filed M.C. No. 110 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month. In the petition, it was contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized at Guntur in the year 1970 as per Hindu customs. The marriage is consummated and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters. All the three daughters were married, but their son passed away. For about 10 years, they lived happily and later, the petitioner came to know that respondent got illicit intimacy with another woman for six years and when the petitioner questioned about the same, respondent used to harass her. It was further stated that since long time, respondent is not providing any maintenance to petitioner and willfully neglected her. The respondent retired as motor mechanic in Guntur Municipal Corporation and got retirement benefits of Rs. 10,00,000/- and constructed two storied building at Nagarampalem. He used to get salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she is residing in a house by paying rent of Rs. 800/- per month.

4. Respondent filed counter and denied the marriage. It was stated in the counter that petitioner belongs to Kerala State and she is wife of one Narayana, resident of Trisul of Kerala. They were running a small tiffin centre in their house at Guntur. The said Narayana, used to visit Kerala and stay there for some time and used to return to Guntur. During his absence, petitioner developed illicit intimacy with respondent and there is no husband and relationship between them. Respondent retired from service on 01.11.2004 and got Rs. 1,38,600/- towards retirement benefits. He discharged some debts with the said amount and he is still indebted to several persons and now he is getting pension of Rs. 4,200/-. Petitioner is still running tiffin centre at her house and getting Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and she has also got immovable properties. One Ambati Gangadevi is wife of respondent and her name was noted in household card and municipal records, as such the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance.

5. During the course of enquiry, petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1, got examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-6. Respondent examined himself as R.W. 1 and got marked Exs. B-1 to B-3.

6. The Court below by order dated 04.04.2009 directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of petition and, also directed to pay the maintenance on or before 5th of every month commencing from 05.05.2009. Respondent was also directed to pay arrears of maintenance upto April, 2009 in two equal monthly installments i.e. first installment should be on 05.05.2009 and second installment should be on 05.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the above criminal revision case is filed.

7. Heard Sri T. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner married to Ambati Gangadevi in the year 1969 and 2nd respondent is not his wife, as such 2nd respondent cannot maintain petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that Ex. B-1 pension payment order is a public document, which contains the joint photograph of revision petitioner and his legally wedded wife. He submits that the Court below ought to have seen that Ex. A-2 photograph is not a conclusive proof of marriage between the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent. He further submits that Court below ought to have dismissed the M.C. as the 2