Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr

3. The appellant-Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi initially filed an application bearing M.C.No.145/2002 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming Rs.500/- per month from her husband Pyla Suri Demudu-the respondent herein, on the ground that she married him in the year 1974 at Jagannadha Swamy Temple at Visakahapatnam as per the Hindu rites and customs after which they lived as a normal couple and out of the wedlock they were blessed with two daughters and a son of whom one daughter died.

The surviving daughter is married and the son aged 22 years is also employed in the Dock Labour Board who was engaged as such by his father the respondent-husband himself. However, the relationship of the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband subsequently got strained when the respondent got addicted to vices and started ignoring and neglecting the appellant-wife as he failed to provide her even the basic amenities like food and clothing and indulged in beating her frequently under the influence of liquor. He thus deserted her and also started living with another woman due to which the appellant was compelled to claim maintenance from the husband-the respondent herein.

4. The respondent-husband herein, however, flatly denied the allegations and went to the extent of stating that the appellant is not his wife as he was already married to one Kolupuru Mutyalamma in a native of Lankivanipalem in the year 1970 and had children through her first marriage and that he never married the present appellant.

He also alleged that the appellant is married to another man and as she owns a sum of Rs.2.50 lac to the 5 respondent which he had given to her by way of a loan at the time of construction of her house in the year 1991- 1992, she started the litigation in order to evade making the repayment of loan amount.

per month to the appellant and the respondent-husband was directed to pay this amount to the appellant-wife. As already stated, this was resisted by the respondent-

8. In the case under consideration herein, the respondent-husband has sought to repudiate the marriage of the appellant as void on account of subsistence of an earlier marriage. But while doing so he has also set up another cooked up story that the appellant is already married to another woman and as she is owing an amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs to the appellant which he had advanced to her by way of a loan, the appellant has raised a false plea 9 of claim of maintenance. Thus, the respondent-husband in one breath states that the second marriage with the appellant is void in view of the subsistence of his earlier marriage and in the next one he states that the appellant-

wife has set up a false plea as she wants to get away from the liability of repayment of the amount which she was owing to the respondent.

proceeds on de facto marriage and not marriage de jure.

16. Having thus considered the contradictory versions of the contesting parties and deliberating over the arguments advanced by them in the light of the evidence and circumstances, we are clearly led to the irresistible conclusion that the High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction while entertaining the revision petition against an order granting maintenance to the appellant-wife 17 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the order passed by the Magistrate in favour of the appellant granting her maintenance. The appeal accordingly is allowed.

J (Harjit Singh Bedi) ...........................J (Gyan Sudha Misra New Delhi, August 9, 2011