BADANA MOHANA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration of this Court in this Criminal Revision is whether the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can remand the case for retrial which has arisen under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts in this case are not in dispute. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that she is the wife of the petitioner and one Laxmi Narasamma has been born to her during the wedlock with the petitioner and as the petitioner neglected to maintain her even though having sufficient means to maintain, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner by contending that he never married the respondent and the daughter Laxmi Narasamma, who was alleged to have been bom to the respondent during the wedlock, is not his child.

(3.) The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the respondent failed to produce any documentary or oral evidence to prove the factum of marriage. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent carried the matter in Revision to the District Court and at the time of hearing, she sought permission of the Court to file three documents viz., 1) Secondary School Certificate, 2) Study Certificate and 3) Employment Registration Card of the daughter as additional evidence and to decide the revision on merits. On receiving the above documents, the revisional Court felt that an opportunity should be given to both the parties to prove the factum of marriage and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh disposal.