THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1017 of 2001 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 07.06.2001 in Criminal Revision Petition No.13 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. The second respondent is wife of the petitioner herein. She filed Maintenance Case No.7 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur for grant of maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month. Considering the material on record, the trial Court, by its order dated 18.2.1997, dismissed the same on the ground that second respondent failed to establish the relationship of wife and husband between her and the petitioner. On revision, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the said order and granted maintenance of Rs.150/- per month to the wife from the date of the petition. Challenging the same, the present revision case is filed. 3. None appears for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 4. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgment of the revisional court is correct, legal and proper ? 5. There cannot be any dispute that, revisional jurisdiction of this under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are illegal or improper or incorrect, normally this court will not interfere with the same. 6. The second respondent herein filed the maintenance case stating that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage took place in the year 1966 as per hindu rites and customs. This was totally denied by the petitioner stating that no marriage between him and the second respondent was performed and they never lived together. There cannot be any dispute that, to claim maintenance, the second respondent has to establish that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The second respondent is examined as P.W.1. The petitioner is described ‘Penubarthi Balamonah Rao @ Mohan @ Mona’ in the cause title of the petition in maintenance case, which is not disputed by him in his counter. Ex.A1 is voters’ list of Rapur Assembly in 1983. Ex.A2, which is relevant entry in Ex.A1, shows that one Mohan Rao and P.W.1 were living in the house bearing door no.1-10. It shows that they are husband and wife. Similarly, Ex.A3 is Voters’ list of Rapur Assembly in 1988 and Ex.A4 is the relevant entry therein. It also shows that the second respondent is wife of petitioner. Exs.A1 to A4 are not denied or disputed by the petitioner. Exs.A6 and A7 are birth certificate and S.S.C. certificate respectively, of P.W.1’s daughter. In both these documents, name of the petitioner is shown as her father. Ex.A9 is group photo and Ex.A10 is negative of Ex.A9. It is settled that, strict proof of marriage is not necessary for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, these documents, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, would clearly go to show that the petitioner and the second respondent were living under one roof as husband and wife. Considering these aspects, the revisional court rightly held that the second respondent was neglected by the petitioner and granted the maintenance. The said order does not suffer from any serious infirmities so as to call for interference by this court. 7. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 11.11.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1017 of 2001 11.11.2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1017 of 2001 Dated: 11.11.2009 Penubarthi Bala Mohan Rao @ Mouna …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another …Respondents