THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.965 of 2008 ORDER: The unsuccessful husband, against whom the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad ordered maintenance in M.C.No.21 of 2003 vide order dated 30.09.2004, is approached this Court and filed this revision. 2. The first respondent is claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the second respondent is their son. They filed M.C.No.21 of 2003 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-per month to the first respondent/wife and the second respondent/son respectively. The petitioner contested the matter stating that there is no valid marriage between them and as such, the respondents are not entitled to maintenance. 3. The first respondent herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 and P.2 were marked on her behalf. The petitioner himself was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked on his behalf. 4. The Court below, having analyzed the evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to maintenance and accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife and @ Rs.500/-per month to the second respondent/son from the date of the petition. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing the present revision. 5. Heard. 6. The first respondent/wife has come forward with the theory that their marriage was performed on 02.09.1994 in Ramalayam Temple at Lalapet, Secunderabad, and during their wedlock, the second respondent was born. No doubt, the petitioner denied the said fact. But, as per the reply notice-Ex.P2 given by the petitioner, it is clear that he is having intimacy with the first respondent and in that connection, he was visiting her house regularly. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this aspect alone is sufficient to hold that the petitioner and the first respondent lived together for a considerable period. Further, the first respondent, as stated supra, has come forwarded that their marriage was performed on 02.09.1994. In the light of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P2-reply notice, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. Apparently, as per Ex.R1-salary certificate, which is of the year 1994, the petitioner was getting net salary at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. Now, after 16 years, the said salary must have definitely been enhanced. In those circumstances, it is clear that the maintenance awarded by the Court below cannot be said to be excessive. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order impugned. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:22.11.2010 sj