THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1364 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10.02.2009, in I.A.No.39 of 2009 in O.P.No.1058 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Family Judge, Visakhpatnam, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 125 (1) CPC, was allowed granting interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed O.P.No.1058 of 2008 against the petitioner for maintenance. According to the respondent, her marriage with the petitioner took place on 17.11.2002 at Annavaram. She alleges that subsequently eight months after the marriage she was neglected and subjected to harassment over a demand for additional dowry. According to her, petitioner is working in a medical factory and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Pending disposal of the main O.P., she filed the present application-I.A.No.39 of 2009, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month. 4. Petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the application and inter alia contending that on the date of the marriage i.e. 17.11.2002, respondent herein was already married to one Akula Ramana and the said marriage was subsisting and the parents of the respondent suppressed the same and performed the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner and subsequent to the marriage also, respondent continued her relationship with the said Ramana. Petitioner therefore contended that the marriage of the respondent herein with him was void, ab initio on account of the subsistence of the first marriage of the respondent with Akula Ramana and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. Petitioner further contended that subsequently in 2003, respondent obtained divorce from her first husband-Akula Ramana through Court in O.P.No.557 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 5. The learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam allowed the application and granted interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month observing that in the absence of any documentary evidence, it is not possible to accept the version of the petitioner herein about the marriage of the respondent herein subsisting with Akula Ramana and subsequent divorce of the same and therefore as the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was not in dispute, petitioner herein is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent herein. 6. In the Civil Revision Petition, petitioner filed copy of the invitation for the marriage of the respondent with the said Ramana that took place on 21.05.1994; the order, dated 17.05.2003; copy of the deposition of the respondent herein, who gave evidence in O.P.No.557 of 2002, and copy of the order, dated 17.05.2003, in O.P.No.557 of 2002, as material papers. The invitation c a rd , prima facie, shows that the marriage of the respondent took place with the said Ramana on 05.09.1994. In fact, the said marriage of the respondent with the said Ramana is not disputed and the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they entered into a customary divorce and executed a divorce deed on 18.04.1998 and the petitioner herein married the respondent subsequently in 2002 with the knowledge of the marriage of the respondent with the said Ramana and the customary divorce between them on 18.04.1998. Admittedly, the said document is not filed before the Family Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the deposition of the respondent herein, who was examined as P.W.1 in O.P.No.557 of 2002, even on the date of deposition i.e. 17.05.2003, the respondent herein stated that the said Ramana was her husband and they would not lead married life in future and therefore decree of divorce may be granted by mutual consent and accordingly the decree of divorce was granted on 17.05.2003. He would therefore contend that even as per the admission of the respondent herself and in view of the divorce having been granted on 17.05.2003, the respondent’s marriage with the said Ramana was subsisting by the date of the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner that took place on 17.11.2002. The above documents, which are now filed as material papers, are not filed before the Family Court and in view of the absence of such documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner herein. 8. Now that both sides have filed certain documents by way of material papers having relevancy and bearing over the issue to be decided, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the learned Judge, Additional Family Court for fresh consideration, after giving opportunity to both sides to file necessary documents in support of the respective contentions and dispose of the application afresh in accordance with law at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Alternatively, it is open to the learned Judge, Family Court to consider disposal of the main O.P. itself, having regard to the fact that the main O.P. is also filed for maintenance in the year, 2008. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Family Court. 9. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 17th October, 2011. Tsy