HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 475 of 2008 O R D E R: This criminal petition has been taken out U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the respondent in MC No 35 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem with a prayer to quash the order dated 03-03- 2006 passed in MC No. 35 of 2001 as well as the order dated 27.06.2007 passed in Crl.Revision Petition No. 113 of 2006 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2. The 2nd respondent herein-wife filed MC No. 35 of 2001 U/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- from the petitioner herein. It is her case that her marriage with the petitioner herein was performed in the year 1957 at Annavaram Satyanarayana Swami Temple and out of the wedlock, she gave birth to a male child, who died at the age of 35 years. It is her further case that the petitioner-husband addicted to vices and married one Satyavathi, for which she filed a case U/sec. 494 IPC, and that the petitioner- husband neglected her to maintain. Therefore, she claimed maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from him. The petitioner herein filed a counter inter alia contending that there is no relationship of husband and wife between him and the 2nd respondent herein. He even denied the birth of a male child out of the wedlock. To prove her case, the wife -2nd respondent got herself examined as PW1 and also examined four more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The petitioner-husband got himself examined as RW-1. The learned Addl.Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, after considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, by order dated 03.03.2005, proceeded to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife. Assailing the said order, the husband filed a revision before the Prl. Sessions Judge, West Godavri District at Eluru being Crl. Revision Petition No. 113 of 2006. The learned District Judge on re-appreciation of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the husband failed to make out any valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial court and accordingly dismissed the revision by order dated 27-06-2007. Hence this petition by the husband. 3. Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on 31-01-2008 and the petitioner has been permitted to take out notice to the 2nd respondent by registered post with ack. due and accordingly the petitioner took out notice to the respondent No.2 and filed proof of service into court. Despite service being affected on 2nd respondent, she has not entered appearance either in person or through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband submits that the trial court as well as the revisional court committed an error in appreciating the evidence brought on record and therefore, the order passed by the trial court as confirmed by the revisonal court is liable to be quashed. 6. The 2nd respondent -wife filed MC No. 35 of 2001 before the II Addl.Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru, claiming maintenance against the petitioner- husband. To substantiate her claim, she got herself examined as PW1 and examined four more witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to P4. Ex-P1 is the marriage certificate, Ex-P3 is the certified copy of the partition deed and Ex.P4 is the thumb impression of the petitioner herein. She is able to prove her marriage with the petitioner herein and birth of a male child out of the wedlock by examining P.Ws.2 and 3 and by marking Ex.P1. In deed, Ex-P3 Partition Deed, the 2nd respondent-wife represented her minor son as guardian. Unfortunately, her son died at the age of 35 years. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 has been discussed by the trial court at length and recorded a finding that the wife is able to prove her marriage with the petitioner herein. The revisional court on re-appreciating the material brought on record came to the conclusion that the husband failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the order of the trial court. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner-husband has not made out any valid grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the revisional court, in exercise of powers U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. __________ 19-08-2010