THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3684 of 2008 Date: 17.03.2011 Between: A. Ananda Rao … Petitioner AND 1. Repalle Swarnalatha 2. State of A.P., rep.by P.P. High Court of AP, Hyd. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3684 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband. Through M.C.No.7 of 1998, maintenance at Rs.500/- per month was granted in favour of the first respondent-wife. Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2001 laid by the husband before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool was dismissed. Crl.P.No.1550 of 2004 laid by the husband impugning the order in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2001 also was dismissed. 2. However, maintenance was subsequently enhanced to Rs.3,000/- on the request of the first respondent. The husband later filed Crl.M.P.No.6018 of 2007 in M.C.No.7 of 1998 for the cancellation of the maintenance on the ground that the husband divorced the wife and that the marriage between the husband and the wife does not subsist. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question of granting maintenance would arise only when the first respondent is the wife of the petitioner. If the first respondent is not the wife of the petitioner, she would not be entitled to maintenance. While so, it would appear that the wife laid a criminal case in C.C.No.79 of 2000 against the husband under Sections 498-A, 494 and 420 IPC. The husband was acquitted for the offence u/s.494 IPC by the trial Court in C.C.No.79 of 2000. He would appear to have been convicted for the offences u/s.498-A and 420 IPC. However, Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2000 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool laid by the husband was allowed. The husband was acquitted for the offences u/s.498-A and 420 IPC also. The wife, in turn, preferred Criminal Revision Case No.238 of 2003 before this Court. The revision was dismissed. However, in the revision, inter alia, it was observed that the wife failed to establish the solemnization of the marriage between the wife and the husband u/s.60 of the Indian Christian Marriage. Act. 3. Considering that this Court held that there was no marriage between the wife and the husband, the husband moved Crl.M.P.No.6018 of 2007 for the cancellation of the maintenance. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool dismissed Crl.M.P.No.6018 of 2007 holding that he is not bound by the stray observations of the High Court in Crl.R.C.No.238 of 2003 and that such an observation by a Civil Court, however, holding that the wife and the husband were not legally wedded man and wife would have been binding on him. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class thus dismissed Crl.M.P.No.6018 of 2007. 5. The husband, consequently, preferred Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2008 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. Hence, this petition. 6. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no valid marriage between the wife and the husband, that the first respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that the first respondent, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the observations at para-9 of the judgment of the High Court in Criminal Revision Case No.238 of 2003. It may be pointed out that the High Court did not hold that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. The Court merely pointed out that the wife failed to establish the marriage. I am afraid that such a finding by the High Court in exercise of its criminal revisional jurisdiction cannot endure in favour of the petitioner to hold that there is no marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. Till the petitioner establishes that there is no valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent, the award of maintenance by the trial Court in M.C.No.7 of 1998 holds good. Indeed, it is open for the petitioner to establish through orders from a competent court that there is no marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent or that the first respondent is not the wife of the petitioner. In such an event, the petitioner would be entitled to seek for the cancellation of the maintenance. Till such time, the petitioner cannot seek for the cancellation of the maintenance on the ground that the first respondent is not the wife. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed holding that the petitioner failed to establish any grounds for the cancellation of the maintenance awarded in favour of the first respondent. At the same time, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps to establish that he is not the legally wedded husband of the first respondent and claim for the cancellation of the maintenance that was awarded by the Court, which was subsequently enhanced. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 17.03.2011 Isn