THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY S.A.No.284 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The second appeal is filed against the order of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, which in turn was passed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal in C.F.R.No.14957 of 2006 under which the plaint filed by the appellant stating that the respondent is not his wife, was dismissed and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. 2. The trial Court rejected the plaint for the reason that while disposing of the Criminal Petition No.953 of 1996 this Court observed as follows: “This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the 1st respondent, which is confirmed by the revisional Court in revision. The main attack on the impugned orders is that there is no finding that 1st respondent was the wife of the petitioner. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court had come to a conclusion that after their marriage, the 1st respondent and petitioner were living for 1 ½ years together as husband and wife. This has been proved through evidence and there is a presumption of marriage if two persons are living together. In these circumstances, I do not think there is any scope for this Court to interfere in the matter. Petition is accordingly dismissed.” 3. In spite of service, none appears for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. When the appellant is seeking declaration that the alleged marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant said to have been solemnized on 26.10.2000 was false, fabricated and void for the reason that this Court in Crl.P.No.953 of 2006 observed that there was presumption of marriage, the plaint cannot be rejected as that was only an observation while disposing of Criminal Petition for quashing the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., contends the appellant. 5. As the order in Criminal Petition No. 953 of 2006 is passed in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, there must have been enquiry with regard to the marriage and as to whether the present respondent is the wife of the petitioner or not. That being the nature of enquiry and when the same was confirmed by this Court in Crl.P.No.953 of 2006 for the reason that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are only summary in nature, the petitioner cannot be allowed to have another round of litigation. It is pertinent to mention here that even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC, for cheating the respondent and marrying her suppressing the factum of his earlier marriage. Thus, on two occasions, enquiry was held with regard to the same question of marriage between the parties, may be in criminal proceedings, and admittedly, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have become final and proceedings under Section 420 Cr.P.C. though have not become final, initially the present appellant is convicted and the same is confirmed by the lower appellate court and only a revision is pending in the High Court again as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. In the circumstances, I see no merits in the second appeal and the same fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 19th August 2009 Rns