The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners must prove neglect and the respondent's means to maintain them to succeed in a maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008 (old M.C.No.42 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur) on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), questioning the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, dated 25.08.2008 awarding maintenance in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

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 Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the petitioners in F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur. Originally, they filed M.C.No.42 of 2007 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur and later it was transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Ananthapur, as such, it was given F.C.M.C.No.15 of 2008.

4) The case of the petitioners, in brief, according to the averments in the petition before the trial Court is that the marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was performed on 01.05.1998 at Sri Vidyaranya Oriental High School, Ananthapur, as per the traditions and customs prevailed in their community. At the time of the marriage, parents of the first petitioner presented cash of Rs.30,000/- and also gold ornaments weighing six tulas to the respondent as dowry. After the marriage, first petitioner joined with the respondent at his residence to lead conjugal life. During their wedlock, petitioners 2 and 3 were born to them. Since the date of marriage, respondent harassed the first petitioner on account of suspecting her fidelity. After giving birth to the third petitioner, the respondent did not take the first petitioner to his matrimonial house. The father-in-law of the first petitioner took the first petitioner to the matrimonial house. First petitioner refused to accept the proposal made by the respondent to give divorce. Subsequently, the respondent attempted to kill her and in the said process he stabbed her for which Crime No.33 of 2005 of Koderu Police Station came to be registered. Since the date of offence, respondent refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. Petitioners have no independent source of income to maintain themselves. Respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The case against the respondent is pending on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. The respondent is getting income of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary and he has also considerable agricultural income. Second petitioner is studying I class in Tiny Tots School, Ananthapur. Third petitioner is also studying in Nursery class in Tiny Tots School, Ananthapur. First petitioner is paying considerable amount towards the education. So, the petitioners required a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month for each. Hence, the petition.

5) The respondent got filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and attributing the neglect towards the first petitioner and the contention of the respondent in this regard is that first petitioner is not interested to live with the respondent. She always prefers to stay at her parents’ house. Respondent made several attempts to get her back, for which she replied that she is not interested to live with him. First petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent. She used to harass the respondent always. As she left the company of the respondent she is not entitled to any maintenance. Upon the report lodged by the first petitioner, respondent was placed under suspension for several years and he has no income. First petitioner is working as an Agent in Postal Department under Savings Deposit Scheme and getting considerable income and she is able to maintain herself. Hence, the petition is liable to dismissed.

6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. On behalf of the r