THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.945 OF 2014

O R D E R:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 03.04.2014 in Crl.A.No.77 of 2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Miryalguda (for short, “the appellate Court)” in allowing the appeal by setting aside the order dated 25.10.2012 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard learned counsel representing on behalf of petitioner/aggrieved person, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State and Ms.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/wife is native of Mattampally where as the respondent No.2/husband is native of Choutapally and the respondent No.2 married the petitioner herein on 04-03-1972 and they started living at Choutapally and out of their wedlock one son was born to them by name Praveen Kumar on 02-01-1993. It is stated that her husband harassed her and necked her out of matrimonial home many a times, once he broken her hand, which constrained her to live with her sister by name Rajeswari at Mattampally. It is further stated that she has no source of income of her own and she was not provided any maintenance, as such she was constrained to file D.V.C.No.6 of 2011 before the trial Court, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for her and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation from her husband.

4. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case, petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and she got examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of respondent No.2 herein, got examined himself as RW.1 and his sister/respondent No.3 herein was examined as RW.2 and Ex.R.1 to R.6 were marked on his behalf.

5. On considering both oral and documentary evidence produced before the trial court, the trial court allowed the petition partly granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner to be payable on or before 10^th of every succeeding month and also Rs.500/- towards costs of the petition, but dismissed the other reliefs sought by the petitioner for Residential order, Protection orders and also compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for both physical and mental harassment suffered in the hands of the respondent No.2/husband.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, respondent No.2/husband filed Crl.A.No.77 of 2013 before the appellate Court, questioning the order of the trial Court in granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner herein.

7. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the appellate Court opined that the petitioner failed to satisfy the appellate Court that her husband subjected her to cruelty or any form of violence while living together prior to filing of the complaint before the Protection Officer and unable to bear the violence in the hands of her husband she approached the concerned forum. On the other hand, the evidence on record particularly Exs.R-2 Pahani and R-3 copy of the Pahani for the year 2002-03 bearing the signatures of the petitioner are sufficient that long back in the year 1996 both the petitioner and respondent No.2/husband decided to live separately, in the absence of any divorce by a competent Court, it can be inferred that the petitioner and respondent No.2/husband were not living together but the petitioner taking advantage of the beneficial and immediate remedies available in the D.V.C Act and filing of petition is nothing but abuse of process of Act. The appellate Court further opined that the petitioner is having efficacious remedy available under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance irrespective of Exs.R-2 and R-3 documents and Section 125 Cr.P.C. also providing right to a divorced woman to claim maintenance from the husband until re-marr