P VAZARAM Vs. P V RAGHAVULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notice was served, none appeared fox the 1st respondent Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent

(2.) The petitioners filed M.C.No. 4 of 1988 on the file of the II Addl. Judl First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, under Section 125 of the Code-of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The learned Magistrate granted Rs.250/- p.m for the 1st petitioner and Rs. 150/-p.m. each for the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The petitioners filed Cri.R.P.No.11, of 1992 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Eash Godavari at Rajahmundry, for enancement of the maintenance. The 1st respondent also filed Cri. R.P.No,15 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Jude, East Godavari at Rajahmundry questioning the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance to the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge passed a common order, by whhich, maintenance granted to 2nd and 3rd petitioners has been ehnanced to Rs. 300/-p.m. each. However, allowing the Crl.R.P.No.15 of 1992 filed by the 1st respondent-husband the learned Sessions Judge set aside the maintenance granted to the 1st petitioners on the ground, that there was no evidence to show that she was the wife of the 1st respondent. This Criminal petition was filed questioning the order passed in Crl.RP.No15 of 1992.

(3.) The 1st respondent has taken an objection before the learned Magistrate that the 1st petitioner was not his wife and that he was married to one Dhanalakslmi ana having children through her. This plea and the evidence letin by the 1st respohdent has been considered at length the learned Magistrate and recorded a finding that prima facie the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1 st respondent and that 2nd and 3rd petitioners are his children He also held that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code are not meant to decide finally the civil dispute with regard to the factum of validity of the marriage between the parties, which has to be left to be decided, properly, by the Civil Court. In that view the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance to the 1st petitioner also. the learned Sessions Judge without adverting to the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for arriving at the finding that the 1 st petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent or without discussing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on this aspect held that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent and therefore she was not entitled for any maintenance and that the petitioners though the illegitimate children of the 1st respondent, they were entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.