IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7448 of 2008 Between: Shaik Imam Johny, S/o Mastan .. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd. by Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7448 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K. Madhu, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. This Criminal Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 12-09-2008 in Crl.M.P.No.649 of 2008 in Crl.M.P.No.4362 of 2004 in M.C.No.53 of 1994 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to receive the documents and recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking such documents, in the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate adverted to the contentions of both sides and observed that this plea of talak was taken even in the original maintenance case in spite of which the court granted maintenance and that the court disbelieved the talaknama filed in the main maintenance case, while granting the maintenance. The learned Magistrate, therefore, considered it not relevant to permit the production of those documents or to admit them into evidence through PW.1, as the petitioner is not entitled to fill up lacunae in his case in the maintenance case through this M.P. It is further seen from the material on record that the order in M.C.No.53 of 1994 dated 23-2-1995 though passed ex parte, specifically considered the question of talak between the parties and the court was not inclined to accept the allegation made by the petitioner so far as such process of divorce was concerned and it was only in consequence that the maintenance was granted. Crl.R.P.No.32 of 1996 against the said ex parte order also was decided by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole on 30-06-2000 in the absence of both the parties confirming the findings of fact arrive at by the trial court. It is thus seen from the orders of the trial court and the revisional court that this question of talak and the documents relating to the same was the subject of specific consideration by both the courts before granting and confirming the maintenance awarded to the second respondent. In the counter filed in Crl.M.P.No.649 of 2008, the second respondent had specifically brought to notice that these documents cannot be brought on record into the evidence to fill up lacunae. The case of the petitioner did not specify any positive reasons as to how these documents become relevant in the enquiry in the petition for enforcement of the order of maintenance. Under the above circumstances, it is clear that the self-same documents, now sought to be introduced into evidence in the petition for enforcement of the order of maintenance could not have been relevant for the purpose of enquiry, when they were already considered and rejected by the trial court and the revisional court, while granting and confirming the maintenance. Mere reiteration of the original talaknama by any subsequent notice in 2006 could not have made any difference to enforcement of the original order of maintenance and therefore, the order of the trial court does not appear to be susceptible to exercise of any inherent jurisdiction of this court. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of maintenance continuing to be in force, it is always open to seek appropriate remedies provided by law to have the said order cancelled or varied or modified due to any change of circumstances under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any such other appropriate provisions to stall the enforcement of such order of maintenance instead of attempting to do the same by introduction of documents relating to a talak, which were rejected by the trial court and the revisional court. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-09-2009 Ksn