HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6843 OF 2007 DATE:10-12-2010 BETWEEN Polla Purnachander Rao …Petitioner AND Polla Pullamma & Another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6843 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the orders of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet made in Crl.Revision Petition No.48 of 2006, dated 18.10.2007, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner-husband was dismissed confirming the award of maintenance at Rs.1,000/- to the first respondent-wife by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, dated 25.4.2006. There is no dispute with regard to the marital states between the petitioner and the first respondent. The first respondent-wife filed M.C. claiming maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month. Contesting the same, petitioner-husband filed a counter contending that after the marriage, the first respondent-wife did not choose to join with him even after several efforts made by him, that as the conjugal life has not commenced in between the petitioner and the first respondent, they did not bless with any children, and that the wife never lived with him at any point of time and therefore, the question of harassment and torture meted out by him does not arise. A panchayat was conducted on 5.8.1997 before Avula Suryanarayana, Panchumarthi Sambasiva Rao and B.V.D.Prasad, where, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the wife towards per permanent alimony and final settlement, and that the settlement was duly reduced in writing, which has been marked as Ex.R.2. Therefore, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Magistrate allowed the M.C. awarding maintenance at Rs.1,000/- per month stating that the petitioner- husband did not take any steps to examine the alleged elders i.e. Avula Suryanarayana, Panchumarthi Sambasiva Rao and B.V.D.Prasad to prove that he had paid Rs.1 lakh to the wife towards her permanent alimony and settlement, which in fact, is not correct. On revision being filed by the husband, the revisional Court rightly observed that the petitioner-husband discharged the burden of proving Ex.R.2-agreement by examining R.Ws.2 and 3 i.e. R.Suryanarayana and B.V.D. Prasad and therefore, it is for the first respondent-wife to disprove the same, but no material is placed by the wife to discredit Ex.R.2-agreement, and therefore, it was held that the wife received a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards permanent maintenance and Ex.R.2-agreement is a true document. However, it was observed that Ex.R.2-agreement is a relinquishment document relinquishing the maintenance rights in lieu of receipt of Rs.1 lakh and therefore, it is compulsorily registrable document which is liable for stamp duty and penalty and hence, unless the stamp duty and penalty is paid, the same cannot be looked into. Further it was observed that when the wife was examined as P.W.1, she was not confronted with the execution of Ex.R.2-agreement to elicit that the signature on Ex.R.2-agreement is that of her, and accordingly held that the agreement pleaded by the petitioner-husband about payment of Rs.1 lakh is not true and accordingly dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the factum that Ex.R.2-agreement is an unstamped agreement relinquishing the right of maintenance by the wife-first respondent in lieu of Rs.1 lakh towards permanent alimony. In the absence of any suggestion made to the wife in her cross-examination as to Ex.R.2-agreement, the same cannot be taken into consideration to prove the payment. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent married another person and living with him and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. If that be the case, the petitioner is at liberty to move the learned Magistrate under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to alter the maintenance awarded or to move the Legal Services Authority to record the settlement arrived between the parties under Ex.R.2-agreement. No infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the revisional Court warranting interference by this Court. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 09, 2010 Tsr.