IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.254 OF 2000 Between: Ijjada Ramulamma ..... Petitioner/1st respondent AND 1. Pinninti Venkatappadu 2. State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: The criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order, dated 03.02.1999, in Crl.R.P.No.102 of 1995, on the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereunder and whereby, the impugned order, dated 30.10.1995, in M.C.No.26 of 1993, on the file of the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rajam, was set aside and the petition, in M.C.No.26 of 1993, for grant of maintenance was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal revision case may be stated as follows: The averments stated by the petitioner in the petition would go to show that the respondent married the petitioner long ago in the simplest form according to the Hindu Law and customary rites when both the parties were at a very young age and minors. After the petitioner obtained Puberty, she went to the house of the respondent according to the customary practice of the community, but she was not allowed. Therefore, she was staying with her brother and for some time, with her sister. Hence, the petition. 4. The same was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter. The contention of the respondent is that he is not the legally wedded husband of the petitioner and that he married another woman by name Jayalaxmi on 27.06.1975 and through her, he had two children. After lapse of 15 to 20 years, the present application is filed with a view to harass the respondent. 5. To substantiate its case, the petitioner examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined but no documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, granted Rs.500/- towards maintenance. On revision, it was reversed. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the revisional Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Unless a finding is shown to be incorrect or illegal, normally this Court would not interfere with the findings of the revisional Court. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon any admissible evidence. A finding can be perverse if it is not based upon any evidence or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration. In view of the fact that the respondent was seriously disputing about the performance of his marriage with the petitioner, the initial burden stands on the petitioner to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. According to the pleading and evidence, it is clear that the marriage of petitioner and respondent took place while they were minors. Even assuming for a moment, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted, the marriage is not a valid one in the eye of law. In view of the fact that it is alleged that the marriage took place long back, it is not expected from the petitioner to adduce evidence with regard to the performance of the marriage. No doubt, a strict proof of marriage is not necessary for the purpose of claiming maintenance by a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But at the same time, there must be an evidence to show that in pursuance of the marriage, they have been living together for considerable length of period as wife and husband. 10. It is not in dispute that in the year 1975, the marriage of the respondent with one Jayalaxmi was performed and they were blessed with two children aged about 18 and 17 years. Except filing the post cards said to have been written by the respondent, which are marked as Exs.P3 to P7, the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to show that they were living together as wife and husband for a considerable length of period. Even assuming that these post cards have been written by the respondent, they did not indicate the relationship between them much less the husband and wife. Similarly, Exs.P8 and P9 which are the voter’s lists for the years 1988 and 1986, were not shown to have been issued by the concerned authority in exercise of discharging the official duties. From the year 1975 till the date of filing of the petition in the year 1993, the petitioner has not raised any objection nor made effort to join with her husband. If really, she was married to the respondent, she would have objected the marriage of the respondent with one Jayalaxmi in the year 1975. That has not been done so. She has not taken any steps to prosecute the respondent for having contracted the second marriage. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner is a legally wedded wife of the respondent or that they lived together as wife and husband for a considerable length of period so as to claim maintenance. In the absence of any evidence, the revisional Court rightly allowed the revision petition and the impugned order, dated 03.02.1999, does not call for any interference by this Court. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 10th September, 2009. KL