HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1502 OF 2007 DATE:19-08-2010 BETWEEN Vaistnavadasu Lakshmana Rao …Petitioner AND Vaistanavadasu Lakshmi & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1502 OF 2007 ORDER: Petitioner-husband filed this petition to quash the orders passed in Crl. Revision Petition No.70 of 2003, dated 5.12.2006 on the file of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The facts are that the first respondent herein claims to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner having their marriage took place on 22.4.1992 and during their wedlock, the second respondent herein was born to them. She filed the maintenance case against the petitioner herein in M.C.No.22 of 2001 on the file of First Class Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance to herself and her child (second respondent hrein) at the rate of Rs.500/- per month each. The learned Magistrate by order, dated 30.6.2003 dismissed the M.C. holding that the first respondent-wife failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and the second respondent is their son. It was observed that except the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 no other evidence was produced to prove the factum of marriage between the petitioner-husband and the first respondent-wife. Though P.W.3, the brother-in-law of P.W.1- first respondent herein admitted that the petitioner herein earlier married one Nagamani and gave divorce, but he did not give any particulars of the divorce deed. On revision being filed, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any proof to prove the factum of marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent, the learned Sessions Judge erred in allowing the revision and awarding maintenance by reversing the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record allowed the revision. Considering the admission of the petitioner-R.W.1 that the first respondent-wife is the sister of the wife of Bhaskarulu and that the said Bhaskarulu sent her to his house as there is no female assistance for cooking food in his house, it was held that under the Hindu Caste custom no one can send an unmarried woman to the house of another person to live with him. Further in support of claim of the first respondent-wife, she filed the ration card wherein her name was shown as the wife of the petitioner herein. She also filed the nomination and declaration form submitted by the petitioner herein, wherein the names of the family members were mentioned as (1) Durga, (2) Tulasi Lakshim and (3) Taruna Murthy, and that the petitioner- husband had shown the first respondent-wife as his nominee. The name of the first respondent ‘Lakshmi’ was mentioned as wife of the petitioner-husband and her relationship with the petitioner was mentioned as ‘wife’. Considering the said evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the son of the petitioner herein and accordingly allowed the revision by setting aside the order, dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram and allowed M.C.No.22 of 2001 granting maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.300/- per month to the second respondent herein. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 19, 2010 Tsr.