HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8483 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed to quash order, dated 21.11.2008 in Crl.R.P.No.55 of 2007 on the file of the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners and the petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C.No.20 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District and also Crl.R.P.No.55 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the M.C. The petitioners 1 and 2 filed the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance of Rs.1500/- each on the ground that the first of them legally wedded the respondent on 13.12.2002 and the second of them was born to them and with out any lawful reasons the respondent neglected and deserted them (details are given in the petition). The respondent contested the petition having filed counter in which it is claimed that there was no legal marriage between him and the first petitioner and by the date of alleged marriage, the petitioner No.1 was pregnant and the allegations of leading marital life and neglecting and deserting the petitioners by him are false and has requested to dismiss the application. Before the enquiry court on behalf of the petitioners, the first of them got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and on behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as R.W.1 and got examined one B.Bujji as R.W.2 and got marked no documents. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced, the enquiry Court upheld the claim of the petitioners in part awarding Rs.1000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500/- to the second petitioner with effect from the date of the order, whereas, aggrieved by that the respondent preferred the revision in which the order passed by the enquiry court was confirmed, following which, the present petition has been filed. Here also, the respondent mainly rests upon the plea that there was no legal marriage between him and the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 was not born to him whereas by the date of the alleged marriage itself, the petitioner No.1 was pregnant and the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced properly and passed erroneous orders and therefore, they are liable to be quashed. The points for consideration: 1. Whether sufficient grounds are there for quashing the proceedings or not? 2. To what relief? It is pertinent to note here that the respondent as R.W.1 deposed in his evidence that there was marriage between him and the petitioner No.1(P.W.1) at the instance of police by coercion and hence the same could not be held to be a valid marriage. Therefore, he admitted that there was some kind of marriage between him and the petitioner No.1, when he claims that it was done by coercion at the instance of police, he has to establish the same by placing sufficient evidence, but he failed to place satisfactory evidence in that contest for which adverse inference is to be drawn. On the other hand, P.W.1 deposed in accordance with the pleas taken by her and further she also got marked their marriage photographs along with negatives as Exs.P4 to P6, which amply provide in fact that there was marriage between them. Ex.P1 is the registered notice sent by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent setting up her claims whereas Exs.P2 and P3 are the corresponding acknowledgments. Therefore, it provides that she sent registered notice to the respondent in support of her claim, but there is no evidence of giving reply to the notice for which an adverse inference is to be drawn. Further while disposing of the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is enough if it is established prima facie that there was marriage between the parties and subsequently they lived together as wife and husband and strict proof of marriage is not necessary. Therefore, it is proved that there was marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent. Hence, it is suffice here for the purpose of deciding the question of paying necessary maintenance to her. Further as far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, emphatically even as per the petition she was born on 23.01.2003, i.e. within 40 days of the marriage. Therefore, prior to the marriage itself she became pregnant and subsequent to the marriage she gave birth to the second petitioner admittedly. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner No.2 was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent. Under these circumstances, it is for the first petitioner to establish that the second of them was born only to the respondent by placing necessary evidence before the court, whereas in fact necessary evidence is not available in that context. Therefore, it is not proved that the petitioner No.2 was born to the respondent only. The circumstances of the case show that even though the petitioner No.1 was pregnant by the date of the marriage, the respondent agreed for the marriage having knowledge about it. Therefore, there is no bar to the petitioner No.1 to claim the maintenance from the respondent. Point No.2: Further with regards to the question of quantum of maintenance, the courts below had in fact not appreciated properly how the amounts awarded were arrived at. No evidence was placed before the court by the petitioners with regard to the properties of the respondent. However, the respondent as R.W.1 admitted that he got Ac.0.05 cents of land and he happened to be natural muta coolly. Therefore, only basing upon the land possessed by him and his status, necessary maintenance can be awarded to the 1st petitioner. Coolly can normally earn Rs.2,500/- at least per month and in that view of the matter it is quite reasonable to award the amount of Rs.1000/- to the first petitioner towards her maintenance. The courts below properly appreciated the matter so far as the claim made for the petitioner No.1 is concerned and failed to appreciate the matter properly so far as the question of awarding maintenance to the second petitioner is concerned. Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained when the order is not based upon good evidence or perverse. In the result, the petition is allowed so far as the question of awarding maintenance to the second petitioner is concerned and it is dismissed so far as the question of awarding maintenance to the first petitioner is concerned. ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:18-11-2011. Rns