CRLRC/2203/2005 of Degala Thomas , Rajasekhar, Vs Degala Padmavati , Degala Geeta Padmavati, on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 22.12.2004passed by the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali in M.C.No.24 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the M.C. was allowed directing the revision petitioner topay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- each to respondents 1 to 3 herein.

2. The facts in brief are that, as per the M.C., the first respondent is the legallywedded wife of the petitioner and that about 10 years back their marriage took placein Shiva Temple at Kakani of Guntur District and that they were blessed with respondents 2and 3 .

3. That on coming to know that the petitioner was already married and havingwife and children, 1[st] respondent filed a report with Krishna Lanka Police Station on27.9.2002, basing on which a case in Crime No.631 of 2002 was registered againstpetitioner under Section 420 IPC which promoted the petitioner to neck out therespondents out of their house and thereafter the first respondent preferred the M.C.4. That the respondents have no means of livelihood and whereas the petitioneris gainfully employed with a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-.

5. The case of the petitioner-husband is that the first respondent is not his legallywedded wife and that there is no relationship between him and the respondents andtherefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to them. The first respondent-wifegot herself examined PW.1 besides examining PWs 2 to 4 on her behalf. However,no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner-husband gothimself examined as RW.1 besides examining RW.2 and RW.3 and got markedExs.R.1 to R.5 on his behalf. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked as court documentsthrough PW.4.

6. The first respondent-wife as PW.1 reiterated her case during the course of herexamination. She has spoken to the factum of her marriage with the petitioner inShiva Temple on 8.11.1993 at Kakani and also the fact that they were blessed withtwo children. The evidence of PW.4 supported her case as the said witness produced Ex.X.1, marriage register and Ex.X.2, receipt book, which clinchinglyproved that the marriage of the first respondent with the petitioner was performed on8.11.1993. The defence of the petitioner was that the first respondent is not his wifeand respondents 2 and 3 were not born through him. Therefore, he was not liable topay any maintenance to them.

7. As per Ex.R.1, copy of marriage certificate, the petitioner was first married toone Jayamma on 29.5.1981 at TBL Church, Woodpet, Vijayawada. He admittedhaving three daughters through her.

8. In the circumstances, the first respondent was considered to be a second wifewithout sanctity of law and respondents 2 and 3 are their illegitimate children.Though the first respondent is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, yet, in law,he is liable to maintain her and also respondents 2 and 3 illegitimate children begotthrough her.

9. In the above circumstances, this court is convinced that the trial courthas not committed error or irregularity in awarding monthly maintenance amountof Rs.300/- each to respondents 1 to 3.

10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

_______________

B.N.RAO NALLA,J