IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.382 OF 2006. Date:23.12.2009 Between:- Pyla Ammanna ..Petitioner And Pyla Dalayya and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning the order dated 03.10.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2003 by which the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order dated 02.12.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palasa in M.C.No.12 of 2001. 2. The petitioner, claiming herself to be wife of the respondent No.1, filed M.C.No.12 of 2001 before the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.500/- per month from the respondent No.1. It is her case that after death of the first respondent’s first wife Vimala, the respondent No.1 married her in Sri Venugopalaswamy vari temple at Chinnabadam village and that both herself and the respondent No.1 lived together as wife and husband for more than seven years. It appears that they have no children. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 opposed claim of the petitioner disputing her marriage with him. He denied relationship of wife and husband between the petitioner and himself. Before the Magistrate, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and examined her relations as P.Ws.2 to 8 to speak about her marriage with the respondent No.1. She also examined P.W.9-Headmaster of M.P.Elementary School, Kotha Koligam and marked Ex.X-1-entry in census register of that school. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examined himself as R.W.1 and examined R.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf in order to deny marriage put forward by the petitioner. The Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge considered entire material on record and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish her marriage with the respondent No.1 and consequently, negatived the petitioner’s claim for maintenance from the respondent No.1. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that both the Courts below observed that the petitioner did not examine neighbours of house in which she and the respondent No.1 are stated to have lived together for several years; and as a consequence of those observations, the Courts below should have given opportunity to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence of neighbours in support of her case. Nobody prevented the petitioner to examine neighbours as her witnesses. Comment of both the Courts below was about her failure to examine neighbours. It is not as if the petitioner asked before the Courts below for permission to lead further evidence and it was rejected by the Courts below. Therefore, at this point of time, I do not find any valid reasons to give any further opportunity to the petitioner to permit her to lead evidence of the alleged neighbours. 4. Except oral evidence, the petitioner could not prove either her marriage with the respondent No.1 or her living with the respondent No.1 as his wife. Ex.X-1-census register cannot be relied upon because name of the petitioner was struck off and one Chandramma was interpolated in its place. The petitioner could not produce any documents like ration card, voter’s list, voter’s identity card or any other official records to show that she is wife of the respondent No.1 and that she was always treated as such not only by the public but also in official records. In the absence of any such proof and in the absence of evidence of living together under one roof, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not establish her marriage as well as her living with the respondent No.1. I do not find any error committed by the Courts below in this matter. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 23rd December, 2009 AMD