HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.524 of 2002 DATE:08.04.2010 Between: Pedireddy Ramana … Petitioner and Pedireddy Vasundhara and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.524 of 2002 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 25.02.2002 made in M.C.No.129 of 1999 on the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam. 2. The respondents herein filed M.C.No.129 of 1999 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner herein, seeking maintenance of Rs.500/- per month each. According to them, the marriage between the 1st respondent and the petitioner took place about five years prior to filing of the maintenance case, and during their wedlock, respondents 2 and 3 were born. Subsequently, the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with one Chinni, and thereby, he started neglecting the respondents. Hence, they filed the maintenance case. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the respondents, P.W.1 was examined and on behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced on either side. 4. The court below having considered the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent failed to prove that there was a valid marriage between her and the petitioner, and thus, denied granting of maintenance to her, but however, taking the fact that respondents 2 and 3 were born out of their relationship and the illegitimate children are also entitled for maintenance, awarded maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to respondents 2 and 3 each, by an order dated 25.02.2002. The same is questioned in this revision. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Apex Court in Nand Lal Misra Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Misra[1] and strenuously contended that without establishing the paternity, it cannot be presumed that respondents 2 and 3 were born to the 1st respondent through the petitioner. 7. The judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view, does not have any application to the facts of the case on hand, for the reason that there is evidence to establish the fact that the petitioner and the 1st respondent lived together, and during that period, respondents 2 and 3 were born. The evidence of P.W.1 also clearly establishes the said fact. Therefore, I see no merit in this revision. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th April, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.524 of 2002 (Dismissed) 8th April, 2010 CBS [1] AIR 1960 S.C. 882