ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment dated 28.04.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Adilabad, at Mancherial (for short, “the appellate Court”).

2. Heard Mr.Dakarapu Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Ghanshyamdas Mandani, learned counsel representing Mr.Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs. It is stated that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- cash, one tula of gold and other house hold articles. They were blessed with a daughter namely Rajitha during their wedlock. It is further stated that after the birth of the daughter, respondent No.2 subjected the petitioner to cruelty and harassment and necked her out from the matrimonial home; respondent No.2 married another woman namely Malleshwari and begotten a son. The petitioner performed the marriage of her daughter by doing coolie works. As the petitioner was unable to maintain herself and her daughter, she filed M.C.No.1 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Chennur (for short, “the trial Court”). The said M.C. was dismissed on 02.04.2014. Against which, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2012 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad and the same was dismissed on

29.01.2024.

4. Later, petitioner filed D.V.C.No.7 of 2014 against respondent No.2, before the trial Court, seeking protection order, monetary relief, return of stridhana property, compensation, relief of separate residence (or) in the alternative to pay house rent and also sought for the marriage expenses for her daughter. The trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2014 dismissed the same by stating that the petitioner failed to establish the relationship between them as wife and husband. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2019 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DNA report issued by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics dated 23.07.2018, is conclusive proof of the fact that respondent No.2 is the biological father of Rajitha and that the petitioner is her biological mother; but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective, erroneously passed their respective judgments. He would further submit that respondent No.2, without divorcing his first wife/petitioner had married another woman and thus, the name of the other woman was entered in the service register of respondent No.2. Therefore, relying upon the decision passed by the High Court of Calcutta in S. Vs. State of West Bengal and another, [https://www.verductum.in/court-updates/high-courts/calcutta-highcourt], learned counsel seeks to allow this Revision.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner is not his wife and that she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.Velusamy Vs. D.Patchaiammal2, Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana, [(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 286], Kalpana Rajendra Pawashe Vs. Rajendra Jaysingh Pawashe & Others4 and the decision passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.V.Sarma Vs. R.Meeriah, [AIR 1980 Andhra Pradesh 219] and seeks to dismiss this Revision.

7. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and