THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.2203 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 22.12.2004 passed by the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali in M.C.No.24 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the M.C. was allowed directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- each to respondents 1 to 3 herein. 2. The facts in brief are that, as per the M.C., the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that about 10 years back their marriage took place in Shiva Temple at Kakani of Guntur District and that they were blessed with respondents 2and 3 . 3. That on coming to know that the petitioner was already married and having wife and children, 1st respondent filed a report with Krishna Lanka Police Station on 27.9.2002, basing on which a case in Crime No.631 of 2002 was registered against petitioner under Section 420 IPC which promoted the petitioner to neck out the respondents out of their house and thereafter the first respondent preferred the M.C. 4. That the respondents have no means of livelihood and whereas the petitioner is gainfully employed with a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. 5. The case of the petitioner-husband is that the first respondent is not his legally wedded wife and that there is no relationship between him and the respondents and therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to them. The first respondent-wife got herself examined PW.1 besides examining PWs 2 to 4 on her behalf. However, no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner-husband got himself examined as RW.1 besides examining RW.2 and RW.3 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.5 on his behalf. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked as court documents through PW.4. 6. The first respondent-wife as PW.1 reiterated her case during the course of her examination. She has spoken to the factum of her marriage with the petitioner in Shiva Temple on 8.11.1993 at Kakani and also the fact that they were blessed with two children. The evidence of PW.4 supported her case as the said witness produced Ex.X.1, marriage register and Ex.X.2, receipt book, which clinchingly proved that the marriage of the first respondent with the petitioner was performed on 8.11.1993. The defence of the petitioner was that the first respondent is not his wife and respondents 2 and 3 were not born through him. Therefore, he was not liable to pay any maintenance to them. 7. As per Ex.R.1, copy of marriage certificate, the petitioner was first married to one Jayamma on 29.5.1981 at TBL Church, Woodpet, Vijayawada. He admitted having three daughters through her. 8. In the circumstances, the first respondent was considered to be a second wife without sanctity of law and respondents 2 and 3 are their illegitimate children. Though the first respondent is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, yet, in law, he is liable to maintain her and also respondents 2 and 3 illegitimate children begot through her. 9. In the above circumstances, this court is convinced that the trial court has not committed error or irregularity in awarding monthly maintenance amount of Rs.300/- each to respondents 1 to 3. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -12-2009 Stp