ORDER:

1 Heard Sri Rama Kotaiah, learned counsel representing Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum-Judge, Family Court, Adilabad, in Crl.R.P.No.36 of 2015 wherein and whereby the order passed in M.C.No.62 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, dated 27.04.2015 granting maintenance to the petitioner herein was set aside.

3 The facts in nutshell are that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the first respondent herein on 02.02.1998 and that that time her parents gave Rs.8,000/- to the first respondent towards dowry besides some gold and silver ornaments and other household articles. After one month of the marriage, the first respondent and his family members started harassing the petitioner for additional dowry. They also demanded the petitioner to give khula to the first respondent so that he will another woman and when she refused for it, they beat her. Lastly on 08.03.2001, the first respondent and his family members beat her and have driven her out of the house after snatching all the ornaments from her and since then she has been residing at her parents’ house at Nirmal. The mediations tried by the petitioner went in vain. The petitioner came to know that in April, 2001 the first respondent married another woman. Thereupon the petitioner filed M.C.No.14 of 2001 on 24.01.2001 before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal and also a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the first respondent and his family members. It is further stated that during the pendency of the maintenance case, the first respondent pronounced talaq to the petitioner on 05.02.2002 and the same was mentioned by the first respondent in his counter affidavit but he did not pay any customary dues to the petitioner and also did not return the ornaments, jahez articles, furniture etc., to the petitioner. The trial Court, after full fledged trial, passed orders in the M.C.No.14 of 2001 accepting the divorce given by the first respondent to the petitioner, granted maintenance from the date of filing of petition till the date of filing of counter i.e. from 21.04.2001 to 19.03.2002 on which date the first respondent filed his counter (divorce communicated to the petitioner). It was opined in the said order that the divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to any maintenance from her former husband after Idhat period and accordingly dismissed the maintenance petition. The petitioner is not remarried till today. On the other hand, though the first respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner, wilfully neglected to maintain the petitioner. Hence she claimed Rs.3,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the petition towards maintenance from the first respondent.

4 The first respondent filed counter, inter alia, contending that the petitioner filed a separate maintenance case being M.C.14 of 2001 and the same was dismissed. In view of the orders passed in that M.C, which is not set aside or modified, the fresh maintenance case is not maintainable. After dismissal of the M.C.No.14 of 2001, the petitioner filed a petition under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, vide Crl.M.P.No.744 of 2007 and the same was allowed ex parte. As per the bar under the said Act, the present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5 Before the trial Court the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and her elder sister was examined as P.W.2. The order in Crl.M.P.No.744 of 2007 was marked as Ex.P.1. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself was examined as R.W.1. But no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

6 On appreciation of the entire material a