HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3061 of 2008 Dated 19-12-2011 Between: Venigalla Sudhakara Rao. …Petitioner. And: Venigalla Siva Parvathi @ Parvathi and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3061 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is seen that notice was ordered in this petition before admission on 11-6-2008 but no steps have been taken to serve the notice on the contesting respondent. 3. The petitioner herein is one Venigalla Sudhakara Rao. The first respondent Venigalla Siva Parvathi claiming to be the wife of the petitioner filed a maintenance case i.e., M.C.No.7 of 2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the 1st Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali against the petitioner claiming a maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month on the ground that he neglected her. The learned Magistrate after considering the respective cases of both sides by his order dated 17-7-2007 partly allowed that petition and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- from the date of the petition. Questioning that order, the petitioner filed a revision i.e., C.R.P.No.99 of 2007 and that was dismissed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur on 4-4-2008. Thereafter, questioning the same, the petitioner has come up with this quash petition. 4. It must be stated here itself that the order of the learned Magistrate would read that the petitioner admitted that his marriage with the 1st respondent took place on 28- 11-2003 and the place of marriage is mentioned as ‘Sri Malleswaraswamy Devasthanam, Pedakakani. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has admitted that he married the 1s t respondent herein on 28-11-2003. Both the Courts below also found on evidence that the petitioner has neglected the 1st respondent. 5. The main plea of the petitioner is that earlier the 1st respondent married one Satyanarayana and that marriage was subsisting as on 28-11-2003 and therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be termed as his legally wedded wife as contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and consequently, she cannot claim any maintenance as the marriage pleaded by her if any would be void on the ground of subsistence of her first marriage. In support of this plea of the petitioner, he not only gave his evidence but also examined R.W.2-Alla Brahmanandeswarareddy, a Fair Price Shop Dealer and R.W.3-P.Venkata Tirumalaramanuja Charyulu, the Village Revenue Officer and also filed Ex.R.1 Voters list. The learned Magistrate has rejected the evidence of R.W.2 on the ground that he being a Fair Price Shop Dealer, cannot be expected to know about prior marriage of the 1st respondent and his evidence was not inspiring any confidence. Even with regard to the evidence of R.W.3 and Ex.R.1 Voters’ list, the learned Magistrate held that they cannot be held to conclusively show the alleged first marriage of the 1st respondent. Learned Sessions Judge, more elaborately discussed the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 and agreed with the view of the learned Magistrate. In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners again sought to place reliance upon the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 and Ex.R.1 Voters List. The learned Magistrate concluded the just by going through the Voters’ list which shows only the residence of some persons in a house bearing No.4-60, the case of the petitioner regarding first respondent’s first marriage cannot be accepted. This was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge also. It may be noted that the petitioner did not take any steps to examine any close relative or somebody who has knowledge about the family affairs of the 1st respondent or her parents and her earlier relations with her alleged first husband. 6. In these circumstances, I do not find any error of law or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. Even with regard to the quantum of maintenance, the said orders are reasonable. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, non-service of notice on the 1st respondent does not make any difference and this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 19-12-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3061 of 2008 Dated 19-12-2011