THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.350 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is ﬁled against the order of the Family Court at Anantapur in F.C.M.C.No.50 of 2008, questioning the maintenance granted in favour of the petitioners i.e., wife and daughter of the respondent, who is the revision petitioner herein. The parties are referred as in the lower Court. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, the marriage has taken place in the year, 1987 between the 1st petitioner and respondent and the 2nd petitioner was born in lawful wedlock. Thereafter, the respondent has neglected the petitioners and necked her out in the year, 2000 and they are not able to maintain themselves, whereas the respondent is a driver in RTC getting a salary of more than Rs.11,000/- per month. The respondent contended that the 1st petitioner has been living with one Bala Katamaiah since 1991 and the 2nd petitioner was born on 10.06.1989 and the 1st petitioner was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, there is no liability to pay maintenance. 3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge has granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the 1st petitioner-wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner. 4. It is represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ respondent that since the 2nd petitioner has attained majority, the amount of maintenance has already been paid and she is said to have been married also. Consequently, the claim against her becomes unenforceable as the amount is said to have been paid. If not paid, it can only be after the date of her marriage. 5. The point for consideration is whether the 1st petitioner was living in adultery and consequently not entitled for maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code? 6. POINT: The learned counsel for the revision petitioner does not dispute about the fact of marriage in 1987 and birth of the 2nd petitioner in lawful wedlock. According to the claim of the 1st petitioner, she was necked out of the house in the year, 2000. Whereas according to the respondent, she left his company long time back and since 1991 she was living with one Bala Katamaiah. If the plea of adultery set up by the respondent is not proved that itself is a ground for grant of separate maintenance to the 1st petitioner. 7. The question is whether the material evidence on record warrants an inference that the 1st petitioner was living in adultery. The respondent wanted to rely upon the evidence of RW.2, who is said to be Tahsildar, and who has given the certiﬁcate Ex.R.1 to the eﬀect that the 1st petitioner is shown as the wife of Bala Katamaiah. But, however, it is said to be a nativity certiﬁcate, dated 20.09.2008. Assuming to be that it relates to the 1st petitioner, the said certiﬁcate does not show as to since how long the 1st petitioner was living with Bala Katamaiah. It is also not clear as to on what basis she was shown as wife of Bala Katamaiah. It is also not clear as to for what purpose such certiﬁcate was issued. Evidently, the certiﬁcate is said to have been issued on the basis of the V.R.O. report. It is not known as to for what purpose the V.R.O. was asked to conduct an enquiry and make a report to the Tahsildar. It is not as per the directions of the Court any enquiry has been conducted. It is beyond the power of the V.R.O., or the Tahsildar to say a particular person was living in adultery or wife of another person when there was a valid marriage with the respondent. Therefore, the certiﬁcate Ex.R.1 and the evidence of RW.2 is not at all legal evidence to be taken into consideration. If the Tahsildar is to certify about the adulterous life of a woman and to be taken into consideration by the Court, then it will be an absurd plea. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the respondent is not legal. There is no other independent evidence that the 1st petitioner lived with Bala Katamaiah as his wife. Mere residence, even assuming to be, in the house of Bala Katamaiah is true, it should be an adulterous relationship between both of them. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the plea raised by the respondent about the adultery of the 1st petitioner is said to have been established. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent has failed to prove the allegation, which itself amounts to cruelty entitling the 1st petitioner to live separately from her husband. In view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:03-12-2011 INL