THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 805 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash orders passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2008, dated 18.11.2008 on the file of VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming orders passed by the V-Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional First Class Magistrate, Anakapalle, in Maintenance Case No.23 of 2001, dated 11.04.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the Maintenance Case No.23 of 2001 and petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2008; whereas, the respondent herein is the petitioner in the Maintenance Case and respondent in the Criminal Revision Petition. For the sake of convenience, I will refer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case. The petitioner filed the Maintenance case No.23 of 2001 for awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month against the respondent on the ground that there was legal marriage between them and without any lawful reasons, he neglected and deserted her whereas on contest, the maintenance case was partly allowed granting Rs.300/- per month with effect from the date of petition, and aggrieved by the orders passed in the maintenance case, the respondent preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2008, which was dismissed and aggrieved by the dismissal of Criminal Revision Petition, this criminal petition is filed. In the maintenance case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and also got examined four other persons as PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, the respondent got himself examined as RW1 and also got examined RWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.X1 to X3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, according to the petitioner and her witnesses, she lived along with the respondent for two years only, i.e. from 1978 to 1980 but she kept quiet for 21 years, without approaching any Court seeking maintenance against the respondent and Exs.P1 and P2 which are Marriage Certificate and entry in the Marriage Register of Gowri Sewa Sangam, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli, are not public documents and nobody with regards to the personal knowledge of those documents was examined and PW5 who claimed to be the Secretary of the said institution filed those documents in the Court and got it marked but he admitted that he got no personal knowledge about those documents and therefore, the contents of Exs.P1 and P2 are not established and, on the other hand, the respondent substantiated his claim placing good oral and documentary evidence before the Court and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence, the order passed by those two Courts are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of invoking Section 482 arises only when there is apparent irregularity in the observations made by the Court below and in fact no irregularities were committed by those Courts and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by those two Courts. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there to quash the proceedings as prayed for. The petitioner as PW1 and PWs.2 to 4 deposed about her marriage with the respondent and leading marital life together for some time. On the other hand, the respondent adduced evidence supporting his claim. In fact the Courts below, on proper consideration of the evidence adduced, arrived at the said conclusions. Unless there is apparent irregularity in considering the evidences adduced, the question of application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. I do not find in fact any apparent irregularity to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings. This criminal petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 26th December, 2011 KSM