CRLRC/1629/2009 of VEMPADAPU SARA AND ANOTHER Vs VEMPADAPU ATCHIMNAIDU AT ATCHYUTHA RAO AND THE STAET OF A.P. on 31 December 2020

ORDER:

The petitioners in F.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, aggrieved by the order of the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 15.06.2009, have filed the present criminal revision case.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1[st] petitioner is wife and the 2[nd] petitioner is daughter of the 1[st] respondent, who is not maintaining them, and as such they are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. The contention of the petitioners is that the 1[st]petitioner and the 1[st] respondent were married at Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Thotapalem, Vizianagaram District 16 years before the filing of the F.C.O.P., and the 2[nd] petitioner was born to them. Thereafter, the 1[st]respondent drove both the petitioners out of his house 14 years before filing of the F.C.O.P. Unable to maintain themselves, the petitioners had filed the F.C.O.P., for maintenance.

3. The 1[st] respondent filed a counter affidavit in F.C.O.P., stating that there was no relationship between him and the 1[st] petitioner and that the 2[nd] petitioner was not his daughter. The 1[st] respondent also submitted that the 1[st] petitioner had earlier filed M.C.No.52 of 1992 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., essentially with the same allegations, and the same was closed in view of a memo filed by the 1[st] petitioner stating that the 2[nd] petitioner was not born to her through the 1[st] respondent. On the basis of the said memo, the concerned Magistrate is said to have recorded that the matter was settled out of the Court and dismissed the petition. The 1[st] respondent further stated that apart from these proceedings, the 1[st] petitioner had also filed a complaint against the 1[st] respondent, which was registered as Crime No.277 of 1991 under Section 420 I.P.C in I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, which was numbered as S.C.No.4 of 1992 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. In that case the 1[st] respondent was acquitted on the evidence of the 1[st]petitioner, who gave evidence as PW.1 stating that she has compromised the matter.

4. The respondent took the stand that filing of F.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, 17 years after the dismissal of the earlier Maintenance Case clearly shows that this was a second attempt by the petitioners to extract money from the 1[st] respondent.

5. The learned Family Judge, Vizianagaram after trial had heard both sides and dismissed the Maintenance Case.

6. I have gone through the judgment of the Family Judge. The Family Judge after considering the depositions of PWs.1 to 4, came to the conclusion that there was no marriage between the 1[st] petitioner and the 1[st] respondent. He came to the said conclusion on the basis of a comparison of the statements made by various witnesses for the prosecution. On account of the said comparison of statements, there was no consistency in the dates of marriage and whether the 2[nd] petitioner was born before or after the date of their marriage. The learned Judge also pointed out the fact that there was no documentary evidence of the wedding that is said to have taken place either by way of photographs or some kind of certification by the temple authorities or otherwise. The learned Judge also took into account the fact that the 1[st] petitioner was unable to give specific date about the marriage which casts any amount of doubt on the veracity of the statements made by the 1[st] petitioner.

7. As far as the question whether the 2[nd] petitioner was the daughter of the 1[st] respondent, the Family Judge considered the fact that the 1[st] petitioner initially pressed an application for conduct of DNA test and subsequently withdrew the same, and thereafter again filed a second application for conduct of DNA test, which was also closed.

8. In the light of these facts, the learned Family Judge came to the conclusion that the 1[st] petitioner could not demonstrate her marriage with the 1[st] respondent or that the 2[nd] petitioner was born through the 1[st]respondent.

9. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the judgment and other material to contend that the judgment of the Family Judge, Vizianagaram requires to be reversed. However, I do not find any error or lacuna in the reasoning of the Family Judge, Vizianagaram. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

31[st] December, 2020Js.

_________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

Js.

RRR,J4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Crl.R.C.No.1629 of 2009

31[st] December, 2020