IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.29 of 2007 Between: Gaddala Sudarshan ..... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT And The State of A.P. rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.29 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the Judge of Family Court, Warangal in M.C.No.6/2002. The revision petitioner is the husband and 2nd respondent is the wife and Respondents Nos.3 and 4 are their children. The Family Court by the said order awarded monthly maintenance @Rs.600/- to the 2nd respondent herein and @Rs.600/- each to respondents Nos.3 and 4 herein from the petitioner herein. The revision petitioner contended that the Court below failed to see that no marriage took place between him and 2nd respondent herein, and erroneously relying on the evidence of the interested witnesses came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent is his wife and accordingly awarded maintenance. He further contended that he never married the 2nd respondent at any time and he married one Saroja and to prove the same he placed his service register and other documents, but the Court below did not consider the same, and that he was retired from service and it is difficult for him to pay maintenance as awarded by the Court below. Heard both sides and perused the records. It is the case of respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein that the revision petitioner married the 2nd respondent in a Temple, and therefore, she is his legally wedded wife and during their wedlock they were blessed with respondents Nos.3 and 4; that after birth of the 4th respondent, the revision petitioner developed dislike against the 2nd respondent and neglected her and her children, then she filed a complaint before Kazipet Police Station; that the petitioner, thereupon agreed to pay maintenance and put them in a home at the native place of the petitioner i.e. Darga Kazipet, Warangal and used to come to their house and paying maintenance by way of cash as well as demand drafts; and that to escape from his liability, the petitioner created a story that he got married another lady with the same name Saroja. It is the case of the petitioner that he never married the 2nd respondent, that she is the wife of one K.Mogili of Tekulagudem village of Warangal District and that she is an earning member and hence she is not entitled to maintenance. On behalf of respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked before the Court below. On behalf of the petitioner herein RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Court below awarded maintenance to respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein, as stated supra. Though the petitioner contended that he married one Saroja prior to 1990, he has not examined anybody to prove his contention. RW 2 who was examined on behalf of petitioner herein, stated that the 2nd respondent herein married one K.Mogili and later they were separated. In his cross examination he admitted that the revision petitioner is his son-in-law. Therefore, he is an interested witness. The revision petitioner has not examined the alleged K.Mogili to prove his contention that the 2nd respondent is the wife of said K.Mogili. He has also not placed any cogent evidence to prove that he married one Saroja and that Saroja and the 2nd respondent herein, who bears same name “Saroja” are different persons. No officials were examined by the revision petitioner to prove the contents of Exs.C1 to C3. The 2nd respondent/wife filed study certificates of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and they disclose that the revision petitioner was shown as their father. It is pertinent to mention that when a petition was filed by respondents Nos.2 to 4 seeking DNA test for determining their parentage, the revision petitioner admitted that he is father of respondents Nos.3 and 4 herein. As rightly held by the Court below, prolonged living together of a man and woman as husband and wife leads to presumption of a valid marriage between them. On elaborate discussion and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below rightly found that the marriage of PW 1 and RW 1 took place in the year 1990 and they lived together as wife and husband for about 10 years and begot two children i.e. respondents Nos.3 and 4 herein, and therefore, considering the financial status of the revision petitioner, awarded maintenance to respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein, as stated supra. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this revision is devoid of merits and there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below in M.C.No.6/2002. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Dated:03.11.2011 Dsr