IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.816 of 2009 DATE:06.08.2010 Between: Adapa Siva Rao …… Petitioner And: Yarlagadda Subbalakshmi and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.816 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C in C.C. No.1422 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. It is alleged in the charge sheet that in the year 1994 there was marriage between the 1st respondent and the petitioner and that they lived together upto the year 2006. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even if allegations in statement of the victim recorded by the police officer during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C is taken for granted, there is no marriage at all between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. As per statement of the 1st respondent and report given by the 1st respondent to the police which was registered as F.I.R in Crime No.323/2007, except decorating finger of the 1st respondent with a ring in Saibaba temple, there was no other performance of marriage between the parties. The 1st respondent was admittedly married to his own brother-in-law and delivered a child during their lawful wedlock. It is alleged in her report by the 1st respondent that her marriage with her brother-in-law ended in divorce. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no proof of divorce between the 1st respondent and her husband. Further except promise said to have been made by the petitioner to look after the 1st respondent and her child properly, there is no celebration of marriage between the parties. In the absence of undergoing the ritual of marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, cohabitation between the two for any number of years will not clothe the 1st respondent with the status of a wife of the petitioner. The question of presumption under Section 50 of the Evidence Act arises only when there is no proof of marriage and a long cohabitation is established. In the case on hand, there is admission that there was no performance of marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent except decorating finger of the 1st respondent with a ring in Saibaba temple. When there is no relationship of wife and husband between the parties, application of Section 498-A I.P.C will not arise in this case. 2) The prosecution had failed to make out statutory facts relating to the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 3) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.1422 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 6, 2010 KSH