HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal R.C.No.36 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case arises out of the order dated 30.09.2005 passed in M.C.No.7 of 2002 on the file of Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The petitioners in M.C.No.7 of 2002 have filed this Criminal Revision Case assailing the said orders. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent fell in love with the first petitioner and developed intimacy; that at the instance of the respondent, the first petitioner eloped with him on 20.01.1999. The respondent took her to Ammavari Temple and exchanged garlands and thereby won the faith of the first petitioner and started cohabitation with her. Thereafter, the respondent took a house from one Veeraswamy of Arilova on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and he kept her there and started living together as wife and husband to the knowledge of all. Whenever the first petitioner pressurized the respondent to take her to his parental house to introduce her as his wife, the respondent used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other saying that he has a sister to be married and till her marriage is performed, he could not take her to his house. On two occasions the respondent persuaded the first petitioner to get her pregnancy aborted saying that till his sister’s marriage is performed, she cannot give birth to children and for the third time, the first petitioner did not disclose the fact of her conceiving pregnancy to the respondent till she became pregnant by six months. When she requested the respondent to take her to his parent’s house, the respondent stopped coming to the house. She waited for one month with a fond hope that the respondent would come and join her conjugal society but all her hopes remained futile. Subsequently, the respondent denied the relationship between the first petitioner and himself. Therefore, she filed a report before III Town P.S.,Visakapatnam, who registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2001. The respondent is working as Carpenter in Visakhapatnam Port Trust, and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. Therefore, she filed the M.C. 3. The respondent-husband filed counter denying his marriage with the first petitioner and having any relationship with the first petitioner. The respondent got married one Sarojini on 6.5.1990 and they were blessed with two sons. The first petitioner was a vegetable vendor in Nehru Bazar and getting Rs.100/- per day. At that time, she is having illicit intimacy with one Dalai Srinivas and she begot on male child out of her relationship and she sold away the said boy to third party. Subsequently, she left Dalai Srinivas and started living with one Aritipally Officer and both of them lived as wife and husband for about three years. Subsequent to that, she instigated the respondent to live with her and maintain her, but he refused to do so. Then she filed a false report before the III Town P.S.,Visakhapatnam, which was subsequently numbered as C.C.No.278 of 2001 on the file of III M.M. Court, Visakhaptnam. The respondent is no way concerned with the birth of the second petitioner. As the respondent has no relationship with the first petitioner, he need not look after the welfare of the petitioners. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the maintenance case holding that the first petitioner failed to establish her marriage with the respondent and the paternity of the second petitioner. Hence, this revision. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that since the wife and husband in this case were living under the same roof, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the maintenance petition filed by the wife. He further contends that the trial court is also not justified in refusing maintenance to illegitimate son. To sum up, the contention of the revision petitioner is that since she has been living with the respondent as his wife for quite a longtime under the same roof, and as a result thereof, the second petitioner-child was born, the trial court ought to have considered that the revision petitioner as well as the child are entitled to claim maintenance from respondent. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court after assessing and appreciating the material on record, has rightly dismissed the maintenance petition of the revision petitioners by the impugned order and same does not warrant any interference from this court. 7. It is the case of the respondent-husband that he has no relationship with the revision petitioner. According to him, the first petitioner is not his wife and the second petitioner is not his son. That since there was no cogent evidence in support of the case of the revision petitioners, the trial court gave a finding against them and consequently dismissed their maintenance petition. It is denied that the respondent-husband took the first petitioner to Ammavari temple on 20th January,1999 and married her, the marriage was by exchange of garlands and as a result of such marriage, revision petitioner No.2 was born. However, it is his case that he was married on 6.5.1990, he was blessed with two sons and leading a happy family life and as such there was no need to elope or entice with vegetable vendor. It is his case that the first petitioner tried to set up a false case against him stating that after she eloped with him, both of them lived as wife and husband in the house of PW.4 in C.C.No.278 of 2001 as his tenants. PW.4-owner of the house deposed that he let out his house to the first petitioner and after observing that many persons were visiting the first petitioner and sensing that some immoral activity was resorted to by her, asked her to vacate the premises. It is his further case that the case preferred by the first petitioner against him under Sections 479 and 420 IPC in Crime No.72 of 2001 on the file of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.278 of 2001 was ended in acquittal since the first petitioner failed to establish her marital relationship with him. It is his further case that the trial court in its impugned order dated 30.9. 2005 clearly observed that the first petitioner-wife had utterly failed to prove her marital status and the paternity of the second petitioner and held that they were not entitled to seek any maintenance from the respondent-husband. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Having regard to the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be seen that except the oral testimony of PW.1-revision petitioner, there is no corroborative evidence on record to show that there was marriage between first petitioner-PW.1 and the respondent as well as the intimacy/cohabitation and that petitioner No.2 was born through the respondent. In his cross examination before the trial court, the respondent has categorically stated that he is ready for subjecting himself for DNA Test. This court having gone through the entire material on record and facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered opinion that the first petitioner failed to establish that the respondent is her husband and the second petitioner was born through him. Therefore, it is to be held that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference from this court. 10. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 02.02.-2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal R.C.No.36 of 2007 -12-2010