IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5106 of 2009 DATE:07.12.2011 Between: Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy …… Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P and another ...Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5106 of 2009 ORDER : As against reversing order of the Additional Sessions Judge, this Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the husband. The 2nd respondent herein ﬁled the petition before the Magistrate claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from the petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate refused to grant maintenance on the ground that the 2nd respondent herein is not proved to be wife of the petitioner herein. On revision to the Sessions Court ﬁled by the wife, the Additional Sessions Judge granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife on the ground that there is suﬃcient evidence let in by her to prove her marriage with the petitioner herein. 2) Apart from oral evidence of the 2nd respondent herein as P.W-1 and her brother as P.W- 2, she examined P.Ws 3 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. Sheet anchor of contention of the petitioner herein is that in Ex.R-3 employment card of the year 2001, status of the 2nd respondent is shown as married person. According to the petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent married one Prakasa Rao long ago and the 2nd respondent herein is in the habit of making claims against several male persons as if they married her. He ﬁled Exs.R-1 to R-3 which are all Photostat copies of aﬃdavits of P.W-1 and one Mallikharjuna Rao and also of the employment card. The Magistrate should not have permitted marking of Photostat copies of documents. In spite of status of the 2nd respondent herein being shown as married person in Ex.R-3, name of her husband was not noted therein and name of her father was noted. If really the 2nd respondent herein was a married person by the date of Ex.R-3, then she should have been described as wife of Prakasa Rao and not as daughter of her father. 3) Ex.P-2 is certiﬁed copy of receipt of payment of amount for using premises of Sri Venkateswara Swamivari Devastanam, Mandapeta for the marriage of both the parties herein. It is on the basis of Ex.P-2, the Executive Oﬃcer gave Ex.P-1 marriage certiﬁcate is issued. Apart from the said evidence, there is Ex.P-3 letter said to have been given by the petitioner herein to Andhra Bank to change surname of the 2nd respondent from Dwarampudi to Satti. Oﬃcial custody of Ex.P-3 letter was proved by P.W-3 Branch Manager. Though his evidence is not based on personal knowledge of Ex.P-3, his evidence is based on oﬃcial records of the Bank. Further, in Ex.P-4 the petitioner herein changed nomination in his life insurance policy from his ﬁrst wife to the name of the 2nd respondent herein. It is contended that nominee’s name in Ex.P-4 is mentioned as Satya Parvathi and not Parvathi. After marriage, the 2nd respondent herein described herself as Satti Parvathi with the surname of the petitioner herein. Mentioning her name as Satya Parvathi instead of Satti Parvathi appears to be a spelling mistake. P.Ws 4 and 5 who are branch manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ramachandrapuram and L.I.C agent respectively proved truth of Ex.P-4 form of change of nomination in the policy standing in the name of the petitioner herein. The said voluminous documentary evidence undoubtedly discloses that the 2nd respondent herein is wife of the petitioner herein. 4) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in C.C. No.93 of 2009, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anaparthi by judgment dated 23.04.2011 found that there is no marriage proved between the petitioner and the respondent. It was a police case ﬁled against the petitioner and his family members alleging oﬀences under Sections 498-A, 506 Part II, 201, 323/34 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent herein has no discretion in leading evidence in that case except examining herself as a witness (P.W-1) therein. It is the police and the Assistant Public Prosecutor who have to lead evidence in that criminal case. The impugned judgment of the additional sessions judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.76 of 2008 was not ﬁled during the proceedings of the said criminal case. Therefore, the judgment in C.C. No.93 of 2009 has no relevance herein. There are no grounds either to set aside or alter the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge herein. 5) In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 07, 2011 ksh