THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.846 OF 2002 Dated:02.06.2010 Between: Sri T.P.Vijaya Kumar .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.846 OF 2002 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated 20.11.2002, passed in M.C.No.49 of 1999 on the file of the Family Court at Secunderabad, whereby the respondents 2 and 3, who are the wife and daughter of the petitioner herein, were awarded maintenance @ Rs.300/- per month each. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent - wife, is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and on account of the marital life led with the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was born. However, as the petitioner was not maintaining them properly, the respondents 2 and 3 approached the Family Court and filed M.C.No.49 of 1999. Though the petitioner has taken the defence that the 2nd respondent is not his wife and simply they lived together for some time and even before they started living together, the 2nd respondent was pregnant and she gave birth to the 3rd respondent, and the 3rd respondent is not his child, the Family Court awarded maintenance at Rs.300/- per month each. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed the present Criminal Revision Case. Originally, one Smt. P.A.Kamaleswari, learned counsel, was representing the respondents 2 and 3, however, as she left the country, this Court directed Smt. Padma Sharanappa, learned counsel, who is the colleague of Smt.P.A.Kamaleswari, to appear in this matter. Learned counsel sought time to get instructions and when the matter is taken up for hearing, she stated that she has no instructions. Heard Smt. M.Venkateswari, learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner approached the Family Court and filed O.P.No.175 of 1995 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On notice, the 2nd respondent herein appeared before the Court below in the said O.P., but she has not chosen to contest the matter. In that view of the matter, the Family Court by its order, dated 19.06.1996, dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. No doubt, it is true that the amount of maintenance awarded to each of the respondents is very meager i.e., Rs.300/- per month, but at the same time when the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, even the said amount, in my considered view, need not be paid to the respondents. Right from the beginning, the defence of the petitioner is that he never married the 2nd respondent and simply he lived with her for a period of six months and according to him, even by the time he started living with the 2nd respondent, she was pregnant, and gave birth to the 3rd respondent. If the said contention is accepted, it can definitely be concluded that the 3rd respondent is not the child of the petitioner. When once it is established that the 2nd respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and the 3rd respondent is not born to the petitioner and when the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is dissolved by the competent criminal Court, in my considered view, the petitioner need not pay any maintenance amount to the respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, the judgment dated 20.11.2000 passed in M.C.No.49 of 1999 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, is hereby set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 02.06.2010 KH