HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.923 OF 2004 Date: 12-07-2011 Between: Smt. Posanibai. - - - Petitioner/ Respondent, Petitioner. Versus Sri H. Gangaram Respondent/ Petitioner/ and Respondent. The State of A.P. Rep. By its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.923 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against order dated 27- 01-2004, rendered in Criminal Revision Petition No.34 of 2000 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, where under and whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the C.R.P. No.34 of 2000 setting aside order dated 10-08-2000, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in M.C. No.48 of 1996. 2. The Revision Petitioner is the wife of the first Respondent is the Respondent in the Maintenance Case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Maintenance Case. 3. The Petitioner filed the Maintenance Case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking to award maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. against the Respondent on the ground that there was marriage between them and he was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and without any manner of right he neglected and deserted her which he denied. After due enquiry, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, allowed the case awarding an amount of Rs.350/- p.m. as maintenance to her from the date of that order, whereas aggrieved by the order he preferred the C.R.P. and the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, having gone through both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the C.R.P. on the ground that she failed to establish prima-facie that there was legal marriage between her and him (the respondent) and challenging the same, the wife has preferred this Revision. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry Court properly examined the question of marriage between them but in the case the learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the corresponding order is liable to be set aside. 5. Now, the point for consideration is : Whether sufficient grounds are shown in order to prima- facie establish the marriage between the petitioner and the Respondent? 6. The petitioner as PW.1 gave evidence in accordance with her plea that on 15-03-1980 she married the respondent in the presence of elders at Boigally, Nizamabad as per the prevailing customs in their caste and further she got examined PW.2 namely Dubbaka Laxman who supported her evidence, but nothing was elicited from their cross- examination in favour of the claim of the respondent who denies that there was marriage between him and the petitioner. The enquiry Court accepted their evidence observing that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only prima-facie proof of the marriage was necessary relying on the decision of this Court in P. Vajaram and others Vs. P.V. Raghavulu and another[1]. 7. On the other hand, it is the observation of the Revision Court that according to the petitioner, she lived along with the respondent as wife for about 10 years and she got identity card issued by Beedi Company but no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner in support of her claim and therefore it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of her (PW.1) and PW.2. 8. A fact in issue can be established not only by documentary evidence but also by oral evidence. When the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in this context was not rebutted the same can be accepted to be true and correct. It may be difficult to produce necessary documentary evidence in cases like this always. But in the said decision it is observed under similar circumstances that only prima-facie proof of marriage is sufficient while disposing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 9. There is no dispute with regards to the other findings made in the order passed by the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, I agree with the observations made by the enquiry Court and differ with the observations made by the Revision Court in this context. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed confirming the order passed in M.C. No.48 of 1996 and setting aside the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.34 of 2000. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 12h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 89 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.923 OF 2004 July, 12, 2011 DSH [1] 1996 (2) ALD 601