BONTHA VEERAIAH DAVID RAJU Vs. BONTHA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At issue, for determination are: (a) whether a concubine/kept-mistress is entitled for maintenance invoking the provisions contained under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (b) In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whether a non-applicant can seek for correcting the adverse findings/observations of the court-below; and (c) what is the degree of proof relating to marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the orders passed by the Courts below in granting maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 herein and affirming the same on revision. The 1st respondent on her behalf and also on behalf of her minor son, the 2nd respondent, had filed M.C. No.29 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- and Rs.100/- per month to her and her son respectively against the petitioner herein. I am referring the parties as arrayed in the petition before this Court. It was pleaded by the 1st respondent that the petitioner had married her in the year 1965 and that they led happy married life till the year 1986 and during that wedlock period, they begot two children, a daughter and a son i.e., the 2nd respondent herein and that after the daughter attained the age of puberty, the petitioner had performed her marriage and she is now living with her husband. Her case is that, in the year 1986, the petitioner came in contact with another lady and as the 1st respondent was suffering with leprosy, the petitioner developed hatred against her, son and necked them out and refused to maintain them.

(3.) The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent is not at all his wife and that he did not beget any children throughher, neither daughter nor the son-the 2nd respondent herein, and that the entire case of the 1st respondent is an utter falsehood and that he is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondents land 2.