THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 531 OF 2024

O R D E R:

1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the Order dated 15.05.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2011 in overruling the Orders dated 19.09.2008 in M.C.No.11 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Mr. Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/wife filed an application vide M.C.No.11 of 2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner/husband, seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month stating that she married to the petitioner/husband and lived with him for some time and even begot a child. She further stated that the petitioner/husband deserted her and got married another woman and has been living with her and is not providing any maintenance or facilities to respondent No.2 to eke out her livelihood.

4. During the course of enquiry in M.C.No.11 of 2006, respondent No.2/wife herself was examined as P.W.1, besides examining one Laxmaiah as PW2 and no documents were marked on her behalf. On the other hand, the petitioner himself was examined as RW1, besides examining one B.Ramaiah and one Mallaiah as R.Ws.2 and 3, respectively, and marked Exs.R1 to R3, which are voters lists for the years 2000, 2007 and 2008, respectively on his behalf.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, opined that the respondent No.2/wife failed to establish any legal relationship with the petitioner/husband. On the other hand, the petitioner/husband established that respondent No.2/wife had obtained caste divorce long back and accordingly, dismissed the Maintenance Case vide order dated 19.09.2008.

6. On the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by respondent No.2/wife, against the said order dated 19.09.2008 in M.C.No.11 of 2006, after re-appreciating of oral and documentary evidence on record, the revisional Court opined that the marriage between the petitioner and R2 is still subsisting and by virtue of his second marriage, the petitioner had neglected his first wife and, accordingly, vide order dated 15.05.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2011, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad at Rangareddy District allowed the revision setting-aside the orders of the trial Court in M.C.No.11 of 2006, dated 19.09.2008 and directed petitioner/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to R2/wife from the date of the Criminal Revision Petition filed before that Court along with imposing an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of the petition. Assailing the said order, dated 15.05.2023, the petitioner/husband had filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband contended that the order of the revisional Court is based on mere assumptions and presumptions and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. It is also contended that the revisional Court erred in passing the order on an assumption that the petitioner/husband is getting an income of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from the landed property. It also failed to consider the evidence of RWs.1 to 3, who stated that caste divorce system prevails in their community. The revisional Court also failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2, who stated that the marriage between the petitioner/husband and R2/wife was performed nearly 30 to 35 years back and R2/wife was a minor at the time of marriage and therefore, the revisional Court erroneously allowed the Criminal Revision Petition. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed to set-aside the order dated 15.05.2013 in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.

8. On the other hand, Sri Rama Kotaiah, the learned Assistant