HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1460 of 2002 DATE:04.06.2010 Between: B. Swaroopa Rani and another … Petitioners and B. Bashaiah … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1460 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 11.09.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Addl. Family Court, Hyderabad, in M.C.No.22 of 2001, in so far as not granting any maintenance to the 2nd petitioner herein. 2. The petitioners herein filed the above maintenance case against the 1st respondent herein claiming maintenance. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is not looking after them and they are unable to maintain themselves. 3. The 1st respondent filed a counter denying the adoption of the 2nd petitioner while admitting his relationship with the 1st petitioner. 4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs. P.1 to P.10 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence, the trial court, while holding that the 2nd petitioner herein is not the daughter, refused to award maintenance to her, but however, awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. to the wife- 1st petitioner. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this revision by the daughter- 2nd petitioner. 5. Heard both sides. 6. According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner is the adopted daughter of the 1st respondent. But, they failed to establish that there was a valid adoption of 2nd petitioner by the 1st respondent and 1st petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner is the natural daughter of sister of the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner did not choose to examine her sister or her sister’s husband. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that there was adoption of the 2nd petitioner by the 1st respondent and 1st petitioner. In the absence of any proof and evidence that there was adoption, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the 2nd petitioner is the adopted daughter of the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner. In fact, the trial court discussed this aspect at length and held that the 2nd petitioner is not entitled for maintenance and the said finding is perfect. 7. In the light of the above, I see no merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 4th June, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1460 of 2002 (Dismissed) 4th June, 2010 CBS