IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3662 of 2010 Between: Murukuti Chandrasekhar ..... PETITIONER AND Murukuti Sailajarani & others ..... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3662 OF 2010 ORDER : This petition is filed by the husband against the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in Criminal Revision Petition No.7 of 2008 confirming order dated 02.02.2008 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anakapalli, in M.C.No.20 of 2003, by which maintenance was granted to the first respondent-wife to the extent of Rs.1,000/- per month. Relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the first respondent is disputed by the petitioner. No doubt, previously the lower Courts as well as this Court in interim maintenance proceedings did not favour the wife on the ground that except omnibus allegations, there is no proof adduced by the wife in support of her contention. This Court left the matter open to lead evidence by both the parties during enquiry of the maintenance case before the Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioning wife let in oral evidence of herself and another witness as P.W.s 1 and 2. On the other hand, petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and examined R.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.D.1 to D.7. It is his case that except he and the first respondent working together in one office, there is no other marital relationship or sexual relationship between them. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no documentary evidence like photographs or other things is filed and no oral evidence of Purohit is let in by the first respondent. Though documentary evidence, if available, may prove factum of marriage, it is not the only method and mode of proof of a marriage. The Courts below after appreciating oral evidence let in by both the parties came to the concurrent conclusion that there was marriage between the parties. It is a question of fact. It cannot be assailed in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After the Sessions Court entertained revision petition and disposed of the same on merits, virtually this petition amounts to entertaining a second revision, which is not permissible in law. Questions of fact cannot be agitated in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find that there are no merits in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 23rd April, 2010 SUR