Telangana High Court
CRLP/1115/2009 of Madithadu Ramachandra, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2010
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009 Date:31.12.2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1114 of 2009 Between: Madithadu Ramachadra .....Petitioner AND: The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and 2 others.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABADTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASADCRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009Date:31.12.2010CRIMINAL PETITION No.1114 of 2009Between:Madithadu Ramachadra.....PetitionerAND:The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and 2 others.....Respondents.CRIMINAL PETITION No.1115 of 2009Between:Madithadu Ramachandra....PetitionerAND:The State, rep. by PP., High Court of A.P., and another....Respondents.THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASADCRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009COMMON ORDER: Both the petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the common order passed on 23.12.2008in Criminal R.P.Nos.48 of 2006 and 20 of 2007 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty against the orderdated 08.09.2006 made in M.C.No.1 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Lakkireddy Palli,Kadapa District.
The petitioner herein is the respondent in the above said M.C. filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein forgrant of maintenance and the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Lakkireddy Palli partly allowed themaintenance case and granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 3[rd] respondent herein and rejected theclaim for maintenance for the 2[nd] respondent herein. Aggrieved by allowing of the claim of 2[nd] respondent, thepetitioner herein has filed the Criminal R.P.No.48 of 2006 and respondents 2 and 3 herein has filed CriminalR.P.No.20 of 2007 questioning the rejection of the maintenance to the 2[nd] respondent and for enhancing of themaintenance for the 3[rd] respondent herein. The learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty has disposed ofboth the criminal Revision Petition Nos.48 of 2006 and 20 of 2007 by a common order dated 23.12.2008dismissing the Criminal R.P.No.48 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein and allowed the Criminal R.P.No.20 of2007 filed by the 2[nd] respondent herein and directed the petitioner herein to make payment of Rs.1,000/- permonth towards the maintenance to the 2[nd] respondent. Questioning the said order, the present Criminal Petitionsare filed by the petitioner herein.
The respondents 2 and 3 who are the petitioners in M.C.No.1 of 2005 and according to them, the petitionerNo.1 therein is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 14.2.1996 about 24years back, the respondent married Ratnamma and she got two children viz., Reddi Kumar, and Bhargavi. Thesaid Rathanamma died before 1995. Thereafter, the village elders settled the marriage of the 1[st] petitioner with the respondent. The respondent and his children through his first wife necked out the petitioner No.1 at Bandakindipalli from their house without any reason. At that time the 1[st] petitioner was carrying 9 monthspregnancy. 1[st] petitioner delivered petitioner No.2 and thereafter, though the mediators tried to settle the matterbetween the parties herein in vain. Thereafter, the first petitioner got issued legal notice on 23.12.1999 and thepetitioners are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent has got sufficient landed property and he is alsodoing business and getting income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum from both sources and prayed for grant ofmaintenance to each of the petitioners.
The petitioner who is the respondent therein has resisted the said claim by pleading that he has noconnection with the petitioners after death of his wife and he did not marry again. The respondent is having theland of Ac.3.15 cents in S.No.1457 and due to drought he is not cultivating the same and he is not getting anyincome and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.
During the course of enquiry before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, 1[st] petitionerexamined herself as P.W.1 and examined one G.Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.2 and K.Venkata Ramana as P.W.3. On behalf of the respondent, who is the petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and examined one Ramachandra as R.W.2 and one K. Gangaiah as R.W.3 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4.
The learned Magistrate has framed the following points for consideration:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent and whether petitioner No.2 is of theirchild andchild and
2. Whether the petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself and entitled for maintenance.
The learned Magistrate has held the issue No.1 by holding that the petitioner No.1 not legally wedded wife of the respondent and the petitioner No.2 was borne to petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 is entitled formaintenance from the respondent at Rs.1,000/- per month. The same was questioned before the V AdditionalSessions Judge in Criminal R.P.No.48 of 2006 and Criminal R.P.No.20 of 2007. The C.R.P filed by the petitionerherein for cancellation of the maintenance granted to the 3[rd] respondent herein was dismissed and the C.R.P. filedby the respondents 2 and 3 for grant of maintenance was partly allowed by granting maintenance at Rs.1,000/- permonth.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 is not legallywedded wife of the petitioner and as such he is not entitled for the maintenance and he also pleaded that the 3[rd]respondent was not borne through him and as such both of them are not entitled for maintenance and he alsofurther pleaded that he has no source of income and he is unable to pay the maintenance already granted by thelearned Sessions Judge as he has sold away the agricultural land onwed by him for his maintenance.
Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for maintenanceand whether the petitioner is able to pay the maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3.
With regard to the contention of the petitioner herein that the 2[nd] respondent is not legally wedded wife, herelied upon the finding given by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rayachoty and also the evidence ofR.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 was denied about his marriage with the 2[nd] respondent herein and the said version wassupported by the R.Ws.2 and 3 and the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class has accepted the saidevidence and held that the petitioner No.2 is not legally wedded wife of the respondent and thereby refused togrant maintenance. The petitioner in support of her contention that she is legally wedded wife of the 2[nd]respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4 but the learned Magistrate has notaccepted the evidence as the alleged marriage was said to have performed at Venkateswara Temple,Madanapalle and the marriage certificate was not produced and no water list was produced to show that the 2[nd]respondent lived with the petitioner. But the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4to show that the marriage has taken between the petitioner and the respondent on 14.2.1996 and as theperformance of the marriage is not required for granting of maintenance and lived together for some time under thesame roof as wife and husband is sufficient to presume that she was the wife of the petitioner herein. P.Ws.2 and
3 who are said to be the witnesses to the marriage has categorically stated that the marriage between thepetitioner and the respondent was performed on 14.2.1996 at Venkateswara Temple, Madanapalle and P.W.4 is father of the petitioner also supported the version with regard to the marriage of the petitioner and 2[nd] respondentwith the petitioner. Admittedly, they have not produced any marriage certificate from the Temple authorities. Butthe respondent has produced Ex.P-2 house supply card which was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer ofGaliveedu wherein the petitioner’s name mentioned in the said card as husband of the 2[nd] respondent and it alsocontains the joint photograph of the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent and subsequently the name of the petitionerwas removed from the ration card at his request on the ground that the name of the petitioner was entered intosugar ration card of his father. Therefore, from the above document Ex.P-2 also, it is evident that the petitioner andthe 2[nd] respondent lived as wife and husband and obtained ration card and simply because of the deletion of thename of the petitioner subsequently from the ration card on the ground that his name was included in the rationcard of his father cannot be said that he is not the husband of the 2[nd] respondent. As rightly observed by thelearned Sessions Judge, there is no necessity to prove the performance of the marriage between the petitioner andthe 2[nd] respondent by performing all the essential ceremonies as required under Hindu Marriage Act and it issufficient to conclude that they lived together under one roof for some years as wife and husband for grant ofmaintenance to the wife.
The respondent No.2 also produced Ex.P-1 which is birth certificate of the 3[rd] respondent herein to showthat she borne on 30.03.1998 by noting the name of her father as the petitioner herein. Therefore, from the aboveevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P-1 and P.2, it is evident that the petitioner and the respondent lived together aswife and husband and gave birth to the 3[rd] respondent. Therefore, as the 2[nd] respondent could able to establishthat she lived with the petitioner and she is entitled for maintenance. Since the 3[rd] respondent is also could ableto establish that she is the daughter of the petitioner as per Ex.P-1 certificate, she is entitled for maintenance fromthe present petitioner.
With regard to the income of the petitioner that he has pleaded that he sold away the agricultural land for hismaintenance. But no proof is produced by the petitioner herein before the lower court or revisional court and thesaid contention cannot be accepted that there is every possibility of disposing of the property only to avoidpayment of maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner herein is specifically admitted in his counterthat he has having the land of Ac.3.15 cents in S.No.1457 and therefore, he has got sufficient income for paymentof the maintenance to the petitioner. Hence the present petitioner is liable to pay the maintenance to therespondents 2 and 3 herein. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to set aside the common orders passed inC.R.P.Nos.48 of 2006 and 20 of 2007 as prayed for.
In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.
December 31[st] , 2010GK.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD
______________________
P. DURGA PRASAD,J
Gk.
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1114 & 1115 of 2009
Date:31.12.2010