ORDER
H. Billappa, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-5-2005 passed by the Family Court at Bijapur, in Criminal Misc. No. 290/2003 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners for maintenance.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the respondent. The petitioners 2 to 4 are their children. They filed petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of them on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that after the marriage the respondent started ill-treating her and that she tolerated the ill-treatment with a fond hope that the relationship would improve but it did not and that she narrated her plight to her parents and that they advised the respondent to behave properly but he did not change his behaviour and that she was constrained to file a suit for permanent alimony and that it ended in a compromise and that she went to the house of the respondent and the respondent did not take care of her and the children properly and that she was constrained to go back to her parents’ place. It is also averred by her that she has to maintain herself and the children and that the respondent is a teacher drawing handsome salary and that he also owns agricultural lands and gets income of Rs. 50,000/-. It is, therefore, they have prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to each of them.
3. The respondent herein resisted the said petition contending that the petitioner No. 1 tried to commit suicide since he did not agree to move to urban area and that the suit was not compromised but it was withdrawn on his assurance and that the petitioner No. 1 is a greedy woman and she is not interested to stay with him and that she is running a beauty-parlour and gets income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is also averred by him that she is not interested in giving good education to the children and that he has taken LIC policy nominating petitioners 1 to 4 as nominees and he is paying Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is therefore he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. The Family Court on appreciation of evidence on record by its order dated 20-5-2005 has dismissed the said petition.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein have filed this revision petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is illegal and perverse and hence not sustainable in law. He also submitted that the Court below has rejected the affidavit evidence of the petitioners only on the ground that the evidence does not fit into the definition of ‘Evidence” as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and it has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustainable in law. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has rightly held that the affidavit evidence does not fit into the definition of Evidence’ as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and consequently has dismissed the petition and hence the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
9. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioners 1 to 4 are the wife and children of the respondent. They have filed affidavit evidence in support of their case. The respondent also has filed his affidavit evidence. The Court below without considering the evidence on record in proper perspective has held that the affidavit evidence does not fit into the definition of ‘evidence’ as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and it does not prove the case of the petitioners and consequently has dismissed the petition. It has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. The entire approach of the trial Court is illegal and perverse. It has rejected the evidence of PW-1 to 4 without any valid reason. In view of this, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Family Court in Crl. Mis. No. 290/2003 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to reconsider the same in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the parties.