1 APHC010390662017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2380/2017 Between: 1. A.RATNAMALA, VISAKHAPATNAM DT.,, W/O A. ANJANEYA VARA PRASAD, OCC: HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O P. NAGESH, BANGLA CENTER, GOVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP AND ANR, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. A ANJANEYA VARA PRASAD, S/O VENKATA RAMANAYYA, OCC: DRIVER, R/O D.NO.103/8/4, MADHAPUR, RANGE. REDDY DISTRICT, STATE OF TELANGANA ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto set aside the order dt.26-05-2017 passed in CrI.R.P.No. 18/2016 on the tile of the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle by reversing the orders passed in MC No.3/2013 on the file of the Court of the 1st Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 3863 OF 2017 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt.26-05-2017 passed in Crl.R.P No. 18/2016 on the file of the the court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle pending disposal of the main Criminal Revision Case and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMA KRISHNA A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2380/2017 The Court made the following: This Court, in the last occasion, directed the parties to file affidavit regarding properties and assets. It appears that no affidavit of assets were placed on record by either parties. It is further appears that long back notice upon the respondent was served returned with remark unclaimed. On 12.02.2026, petitioner was represented through learned counsel. None appears on behalf of respondent. In the absence of respondents, it is not possible for the respondent to file affidavit as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha and others1. Accordingly, the matter has taken up hearing on merit. 2. In this case, petitioner being wife filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C before learned Magistrate. After hearing the parties. The learned Court Below has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and directed the respondent to pay maintenance amount by 10th day of every month. The said order was under challenge before the learned Revision Court in Crl.R.C No.18 of 2016. The learned Revision Case after scanning the evidences, is of opinion that her husband spend huge amounts of educational costs for the daughters and facing financial crisis, he suffer with ill health and working as auto driver and earn Rs.200/- per day. 3. Learned Revision Court has also view that the petitioner-wife fails to prove the reason for deserting her matrimonial house. Thus, the order of maintenance was turned down, learned Court also noted for the prayer for maintenance as counter blast of a matrimonial suit. Challenging the impugned orders, instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. Though this Court has directed the petitioner to file affidavit. No affidavit has been placed on 1 2021 (2) SCC 324 4 record. It is the contention of the petitioner is that she is residing at the mercy of her brothers and has no independent income. Admittedly, the respondent is husband of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is not earning anything or having any independent income and residing at her brother’s house. It has been noted by the learned Revision Court that the petitioner could not furnished satisfied reason for cause of desertion her husband. The evidence of the daughter of parties, who deposed as RW.2 supported the case of respondent. The petitioner pleaded that husband/respondent had illicit relationship with another lady by name Rama. Said fact was not proved categorically. 4. However, the fact suggested that the married lady is residing at her brother’s house having no independent income. The situation of married lady staying at her brother is more worce than residing at matrimonial home, with some ill treatment from husband. There may be several reasons for deserting husband’s company. But it is true that respondent being husband must maintain his wife. Thus, in this case, though petitioner could not properly proved the reason of desertion fact suggests that petitioner is living with her brother’s house at brother’s mercy. It also proved the respondent being husband is maintaining his family having independent income. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of Bombay High Court in Mustafa Shamsuddin Shaikh V. Shamshad Begum Mustafa Shaikh and others2 envisages in Para No.5 as follows: ‘’The learned single Judge held that when the wife left the house of the husband without any cause, then she had no right to live separately merely because the husband contracted second marriage and, consequently, was not entitled to the maintenance. With respect, we are unable to share the view taken by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge overlooked that in the proceedings under S.125 of the Code, it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as to who was in the wrong and whether the wife was guilty of leaving the matrimonial house without any reason. Even assuming that the wife is in the wrong while leaving the house, she cannot be deprived of maintenance when husband contracts second marriage and that fact by itself entitles her to live separately. The 2 1991 CRL.L.J 1932 5 proceedings under S.125 of the Code should not be confused with the matrimonial proceedings between the parties. A right to claim maintenance under the Code is not dependent upon who was right and who was wrong in the matrimonial disputes. The Magistrate is duty bound to award maintenance once it is found that the wife is unable to maintain herself and her husband has means but still neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. The Magistrate is not required to examine whether the conduct of the wife in initially leaving the house was e just or not. The conduct of the wife at the time of leaving the house is wholly irrelevant and the Magistrate must concentrate on the facts and circumstances existing on the date of passing order on application filed under S.125 of the Code”. 6. In the entire facts and circumstances, it appears that learned Trial Court has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/-, which is a very meager one. In present high rising market situation, it is not possible for a person to maintain livelihood with only Rs.2,000/-. However, order of maintenance passed by learned Magistrate required to be maintained to destitute lady 7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case, there exist no proof of voluntary desertion by wife from her husband’s place. At present, petitioner status is nothing but a destitute lady. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance herself. 8. In the above observations, order passed by learned Revision Court in Crl.R.C.No.18 of 2016 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to follow order and direction passed by learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli in M.C.No.03 of 2013. Arrear maintenance, if any, shall be paid within six (06) equal bimonthly installments. 9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:06.04.2026 SSA 6