IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009 Date:31.12.2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1114 of 2009 Between: Madithadu Ramachadra .....Petitioner AND: The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and 2 others. ....Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION No.1115 of 2009 Between: Madithadu Ramachandra ....Petitioner AND: The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and another ....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the common order passed on 23.12.2008 in Criminal R.P.Nos.48 of 2006 and 20 of 2007 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty against the order dated 08.09.2006 made in M.C.No.1 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Lakkireddy Palli, Kadapa District. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the above said M.C. filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein for grant of maintenance and the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Lakkireddy Palli partly allowed the maintenance case and granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 3rd respondent herein and rejected the claim for maintenance for the 2nd respondent herein. Aggrieved by allowing of the claim of 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein has filed the Criminal R.P.No.48 of 2006 and respondents 2 and 3 herein has filed Criminal R.P.No.20 of 2007 questioning the rejection of the maintenance to the 2nd respondent and for enhancing of the maintenance for the 3rd respondent herein. The learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty has disposed of both the criminal Revision Petition Nos.48 of 2006 and 20 of 2007 by a common order dated 23.12.2008 dismissing the Criminal R.P.No.48 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein and allowed the Criminal R.P.No.20 of 2007 filed by the 2nd respondent herein and directed the petitioner herein to make payment of Rs.1,000/- per month towards the maintenance to the 2nd respondent. Questioning the said order, the present Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner herein. The respondents 2 and 3 who are the petitioners in M.C.No.1 of 2005 and according to them, the petitioner No.1 therein is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 14.2.1996 about 24 years back, the respondent married Ratnamma and she got two children viz., Reddi Kumar, and Bhargavi. The said Rathanamma died before 1995. Thereafter, the village elders settled the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent. The respondent and his children through his first wife necked out the petitioner No.1 at Bandakindipalli from their house without any reason. At that time the 1st petitioner was carrying 9 months pregnancy. 1st petitioner delivered petitioner No.2 and thereafter, though the mediators tried to settle the matter between the parties herein in vain. Thereafter, the first petitioner got issued legal notice on 23.12.1999 and the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent has got sufficient landed property and he is also doing business and getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from both sources and prayed for grant of maintenance to each of the petitioners. The petitioner who is the respondent therein has resisted the said claim by pleading that he has no connection with the petitioners after death of his wife and he did not marry again. The respondent is having the land of Ac.3.15 cents in S.No.1457 and due to drought he is not cultivating the same and he is not getting any income and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. During the course of enquiry before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, 1st petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one G.Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.2 and K.Venkata Ramana as P.W.3. On behalf of the respondent, who is the petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and examined one Ramachandra as R.W.2 and one K. Gangaiah as R.W.3 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. The learned Magistrate has framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and whether petitioner No.2 is of their child and 2. Whether the petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself and entitled for maintenance. The learned Magistrate has held the issue No.1 by holding that the petitioner No.1 not legally wedded wife of the respondent and the petitioner No.2 was borne to petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for maintenance from the respondent at Rs.1,000/- per month. The same was questioned before the V Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal R.P.No.48 of 2006 and Criminal R.P.No.20 of 2007. The C.R.P filed by the petitioner herein for cancellation of the maintenance granted to the 3rd respondent herein was dismissed and the C.R.P. filed by the respondents 2 and 3 for grant of maintenance was partly allowed by granting maintenance at Rs.1,000/- per month. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner and as such he is not entitled for the maintenance and he also pleaded that the 3rd respondent was not borne through him and as such both of them are not entitled for maintenance and he also further pleaded that he has no source of income and he is unable to pay the maintenance already granted by the learned Sessions Judge as he has sold away the agricultural land onwed by him for his maintenance. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for maintenance and whether the petitioner is able to pay the maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3. With regard to the contention of the petitioner herein that the 2nd respondent is not legally wedded wife, he relied upon the finding given by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rayachoty and also the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 was denied about his marriage with the 2nd respondent herein and the said version was supported by the R.Ws.2 and 3 and the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class has accepted the said evidence and held that the petitioner No.2 is not legally wedded wife of the respondent and thereby refused to grant maintenance. The petitioner in support of her contention that she is legally wedded wife of the 2nd respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4 but the learned Magistrate has not accepted the evidence as the alleged marriage was said to have performed at Venkateswara Temple, Madanapalle and the marriage certificate was not produced and no water list was produced to show that the 2nd respondent lived with the petitioner. But the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 to show that the marriage has taken between the petitioner and the respondent on 14.2.1996 and as the performance of the marriage is not required for granting of maintenance and lived together for some time under the same roof as wife and husband is sufficient to presume that she was the wife of the petitioner herein. P.Ws.2 and 3 who are said to be the witnesses to the marriage has categorically stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 14.2.1996 at Venkateswara Temple, Madanapalle and P.W.4 is father of the petitioner also supported the version with regard to the marriage of the petitioner and 2nd respondent with the petitioner. Admittedly, they have not produced any marriage certificate from the Temple authorities. But the respondent has produced Ex.P-2 house supply card which was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Galiveedu wherein the petitioner’s name mentioned in the said card as husband of the 2nd respondent and it also contains the joint photograph of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and subsequently the name of the petitioner was removed from the ration card at his request on the ground that the name of the petitioner was entered into sugar ration card of his father. Therefore, from the above document Ex.P-2 also, it is evident that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent lived as wife and husband and obtained ration card and simply because of the deletion of the name of the petitioner subsequently from the ration card on the ground that his name was included in the ration card of his father cannot be said that he is not the husband of the 2nd respondent. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, there is no necessity to prove the performance of the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent by performing all the essential ceremonies as required under Hindu Marriage Act and it is sufficient to conclude that they lived together under one roof for some years as wife and husband for grant of maintenance to the wife. The respondent No.2 also produced Ex.P-1 which is birth certificate of the 3rd respondent herein to show that she borne on 30.03.1998 by noting the name of her father as the petitioner herein. Therefore, from the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P-1 and P.2, it is evident that the petitioner and the respondent lived together as wife and husband and gave birth to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, as the 2nd respondent could able to establish that she lived with the petitioner and she is entitled for maintenance. Since the 3rd respondent is also could able to establish that she is the daughter of the petitioner as per Ex.P-1 certificate, she is entitled for maintenance from the present petitioner. With regard to the income of the petitioner that he has pleaded that he sold away the agricultural land for his maintenance. But no proof is produced by the petitioner herein before the lower court or revisional court and the said contention cannot be accepted that there is every possibility of disposing of the property only to avoid payment of maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner herein is specifically admitted in his counter that he has having the land of Ac.3.15 cents in S.No.1457 and therefore, he has got sufficient income for payment of the maintenance to the petitioner. Hence the present petitioner is liable to pay the maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3 herein. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to set aside the common orders passed in C.R.P.Nos.48 of 2006 and 20 of 2007 as prayed for. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD,J December 31st , 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009 Date:31.12.2010 Gk.