1 APHC010433012022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6480/2022 Between: MandadiAppala Naidu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6480/2022 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yarramsetty Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 2. Impugning the Order in Crl.R.P.No.09 of 2020 dated 12.05.2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Srikakulam, wherein the order passed in M.C.No.23 of 2016 dated 31.12.2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amudalavalasa by granting maintenance @Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month was confirmed, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is the 2nd marriage to both of them. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.2, the earlier marriage of the respondent No.2 with her 1st husband was in subsistence. As such, the relation between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is not undervalid marriage and respondent No.2 is not entitled for claiming any maintenance from the petitioner. 3 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that in the impugned Order, the learned Sessions Judge, rightly observed that the marriage between petitioner and the respondent No.2 is a registered marriage and nothing has been placed on record to show that the earlier marriage of respondent No.2 with her 1st husband was not dissolved as on the date of contacting marriage with the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Orders and prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the submissions on behalf of both parties and on going through the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No. 09 of 2020 made a clear finding to the effect that nothing has been placed before the Court to show that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is not a valid marriage, since the respondent No.2 failed to obtain divorce from her 1st husband as on the date of her marriage with the petitioner. The record further shows that the learned Trial Judge rightly appreciated the material on record and observed that marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is a registered marriage. Learned Judge after taking into consideration the financial status of both the parties and the reason for wife living separately from the husband, rightly granted maintenance @Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) per month. This Court does not find any warranting circumstances to interfere in the impugned 4 Orders while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The Impugned orders do not brook any interference of this Court. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.01.2025 UPS 5 335 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.6480 of 2022 Dt.21.01.2025 UPS