COMMON ORDER:

The Petitioners in both cases preferred the above petitions challenging the very same Order dated 11.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, granting maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife.

2. For the sake of convenience and better understanding, wife be referred as the Petitioner and husband be referred as Respondent or interchangeably, in the present order.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the marriage of the Respondent took place on 30.03.1991 and the couple were blessed with two female children out of their wedlock. It is stated that the Wife was necked out from the matrimonial house and she preferred M.C.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet. On the other hand, husband filed divorce petition H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery. The said case was decreed in favour of the husband, against which, the wife has preferred C.M.A. and obtained order of stay. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further would submit that learned trial Judge, without appreciating the evidence in right perspective and without understanding the factual situation, denied the maintenance to the wife. It is stated that the Petitioner is aged about 50 years, and she is suffering from ill health, whereas the children are with the husband. It is also stated that it is not the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner has got any income to maintain herself. Learned counsel further would submit that, in Revision, learned trial Judge, after considering the factual aspects of the matter and on appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, though granted maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month, it is a meagre amount, and she cannot sustain with that amount. Hence, there is every need to enhance the amount to Rs.15,000 /- per month.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent would submit that absolutely there are no grounds to consider the claim of the wife, seeking maintenance against the husband. There are clear findings against the wife in divorce petition that she herself left the matrimonial house, which itself amounting to cruelty and she has deserted the husband and she was leading an adulterous life. Though the husband made all his efforts to establish the same before the Court, he could not. Learned counsel further would submit that without giving proper reasons, Revisional Court unnecessarily interfered in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court in M.C.No.28 of 2017. Learned counsel further would submit that the Petitioner/wife is having property of 2 Acres of land and getting income from the same. She has absolutely no need of claiming maintenance from the husband. Amount which has been granted in Revision is not in accordance with law, which has to be set aside.

5. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed on record, it is a case where the children are with the husband. The wife has been staying at her parents’ house. The record shows, she is suffering from mental health issues, as stated by her father, which is placed before the trial Court. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. In absence of proof of any income, mere stating that the husband has got properties, 10 shops and getting huge income is not suffice to enhance the maintenance amount which was granted to the wife. On the other hand, when the divorce petition is pending between the parties on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery, it can never be said that the wife has no reasonable ground to stay separate from the husband, in the light of the serious disputes existing between the parties. In that view, awarding maintenance to the wife in the Criminal Revisi