IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1243 OF 2010 filed under Sections 397 & 401 of CrPC praying that in the Revision circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision be pleased against the order dt. 25-03-2010 the file of the Court of the Family court- Case, the High Court may passed in MC.No. 34 of 2009 on cum- Addl. Dist. Judge, Guntur. Between: 1. Bayyapu Nirmala, W/o Rama Koti Reddy, aged 31 yrs, Occ; Housewife, R/o D.No. 20-12-62, Sangadigunta, Guntur City, Guntur District. 2. Bayyapu Naga Raju @ Nagaraju Reddy, W/o Rama Koti Reddy, aged 15 yrs, rep. by his mother ie., 1st petitioner, Bayyapu Nirmala, R/o D.No. 20-12-62, Sangadigunta, Guntur City, Guntur District ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS AND Bayyapu Rama Koti Reddy, S/o Venugopala Krishna Reddy, aged 61 yrs. Business, R/o Vinjamooru, Nellore District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. 1. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP. NO: 1788 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plga^dd to grant interim maintenance to the peititoner herein for a sum of Rs,S,.000/- to each. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI.P MOHAN RAO (LEGAL AID) Counsel for the RespondentsrSMT. ANUSHA DONTI REDDY (LEGAL AID) The Court made the following:ORDER APHC010697762010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] ?: WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO r.RIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1243/2010 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Bayyapu Nirmala and other AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Bayyapu Rama Koti Reddy and other Counsel for the Petitioner(S): I.P. Mohan Rao 2. Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Anusha Donti Reddy 2. Public Prosecutor 3. Legal Aid The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal revision case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 25.03.2010 in M.C.No.34 of 2009 passed by the learned Court-Cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissing the of the Judge, Family petition filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ seeking to claim maintenance ag^rist the 1®’ respondent. 2 Dr.YLr^A Crl.R.C.No.l243 of 201^ Dated 01.05.2025 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the 1=' petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and out of their wedlock 2 nd petitioner was born; their marriage is subsisting. Petitioners are unable to maintain themselves as such, they are entitled to maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, even though sufficient oral and documentary impugned order and grant erred in appreciating the said fact evidence were produced and urged to set aside the i maintenance to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Ms Anusha Donti Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Addit ional District Judge, Guntur, having appreciated the evidence on correct perspective, did not believe the version of the 1 are wife and son respectively of the 1 maintenance petition. It does not ground and urged to dismiss the criminal revision petition. petitioner and 2"*^ petitioner respondent and rightly dismissed the warrant any interference on whatsoever 5. Thoughtful consideration the learned counsel for the petitioners Prosecutor. I have perused the record. is bestowed on the arguments advanced by and the learned Assistant Public 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l243 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in M.C.No.34 of 2009 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 1. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. ... We have carefully considered the material on record and ■ we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illeoalitv or the ' prevention of gross miscarriage of iustice.The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. (2002) 6 see 650 4 Dr.Y Crl.R.C.No.l243 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 ^'3.... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the orocedurfi or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. • It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. ” j re 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph No. 10 held as under; ‘The revisional Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.a, is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acguittal, against which the Qovt. has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public Justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage ofJustice. This Jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. ” This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and D Stephens. 9. 10. I have carefully perused the record and the impugned order. The 1®* petitioner to buttress that she is the wife of 1®* respondent, got examined herself as P.W.1 and her witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, marked Exs.AI to A6. The 1®‘ respondent was himself examined as R.W.1, got marked Exs.BI and B2. Ex.AI- Copy of photograph, Ex.A2- Photostat copy of Voter Identity Card, ^AIR1951SC 196 5 % Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l243 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 Ex.A3-Photostat copy of Study Certificate, Ex.A4-Photostat copy of ‘Hindi Praves Pariksha’, Ex.A5-Photostat copy of ‘Hindi Nagari Bodh Pariksha’, and Ex.A6-Study/Date of Birth Certificate issued by Rajastan Hindi English Vidyalay, English Medium School, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Guntur. Ex.B1-Family Members Certificate issued by Tahsildar,. Vinjamur, Nellore, Ex.B2-Voter Identity Card. The burden lies on the petitioner to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1®* respondent to claim maintenance. It is an admitted fact that the 1®* respondent got married and has legally wedded wife and children I even much prior to the alleged marriage in between the 1®* petitioner and 1 respondent. Without the marriage in between the 1®* respondent and his legally wedded wife is dissolved as per the procedure established by law by the competent Court, the marriage, if any, in between the petitioner and 1 respondent is null and void, because of violation of the clause under Section 5(i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Trial Court observed that the 1®^ petitioner failed to produce any reliable evidence that the 1®* petitioner got married to the 1st respondent in the year 1994. 11. St St Even in Ex.A2 Photostat copy of voter identity card, the 1®* petitioner was shown as Bayyapu Nirmala, D/o Rama Koti Reddy, but not his wife. 12. Ex.A3 to A6 which are Photostat copies of study certificates, Hindi Praves Priksha, Hindi Nagari Bodh Pariksha and study/date of birth certificate issued nd by Rajasthan Hindi English Vidyalay, respectively would describe the 2 6 Dr.YL CrI.R.C.No.1243 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 petitioner is son of B. Rama Koti Reddy without any further description to identify the person. The 1®* respondent denied that he married 1 St petitioner and led marital life with her and begot 2'"'^ petitioner through the petitioner. No proof is filed by the petitioner except baldly stating that on 25.11.1995 the 2"^^ petitioner was begotten to her through the 1®^ respondent and they lived in Guntur for about more than one decade after 1994. St 13. The 1 petitioner failed to prove satisfactorily that she and 1 respondent had lived together as wife and husband. It is an admitted fact that the 1^‘ petitioner had no documentary evidence to prove that she lived with 1 respondent.' The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not much helpful to the 1 petitioner to corroborate her version. There are no admitted signatures of the 1®^ respondent in the school registers of 2"^^ petitioner. The learned Trial Court rightly declined to believe Ex.AI Photostat copy of the 1®* petitioner as it is not a trustworthy document since the original of it was neither marked and proved nor the photographer who took Ex.AI was examined. St St St The Hon’ble Apex Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat^ held that Section 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ had not included the women not lawfully married, nonetheless, it recognized the right of an illegitimate child and it is held at Para No.18 as under. 14. “18. It may be noted at this juncture that the legislature considered it necessary to include within the scope of the . provision an illegitimate child but it has not done so with respect to a woman not lawfully married. However desirable it may be, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant to take note of the plight of the unfortunate woman, the legislative intent being ^ (2005) 3 see 636 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R!c.No.l243 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 clearly reflected m Section 125 of the Code, there is no scope for enlarging its scope by introducing any arhfiaal definition to include a woman not lawfully married in the expression wife The evidence of 2"^ petitioner is also not convincing that he is the signatures of 1®' 15. respondent. The*"© s'"® no illegitimate son of the 1 respondent in the the legitimate father, in any capacity of illegitimate father of the 2^^ petitioner let alone school records. No official who maintained and to have been examined to authorized the school records was chosen corroborate the version of the petitioners. Merely because the 1=' petitioner respondent for sometime is not sufficient worked in the Ginning Mill of the 1 to prove and hold that the 1 respondent. Neither any witness hospital or any other institution was presumption that 2"^ petitioner was Trial Court came to proper petitioner begotten 2"^^ petitioner through the of the place of birth of 2"^ petitioner nor the examined at least to have a prima facie born to the respondent. The learned conclusion that the petitioners, at least, did not respondent which are required for his know the correct particulars of the 1 and fixing his liability under Section 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners failed to establish that the 1 identification 16. petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the 2"“ petitioner begotten to the 1^^ respondent. There is no misreading of the evidence. was let alone material irregularities. There was no There are no irregularities miscarriage of justice. The impugned order does not require any interference. the Secretary District Legal Services Authority, 17. A report is sought from Guntur, regarding any matrimonial disputes pending in between the 1 8 Dr.YUWj Crl.R.C.No.l243 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 petitioner and the respondent, but it was reported negative. A report from the Station 'House Officer, Vinjamur is also called for, wherein it is submitted that the 1®* respondent has been suffering from paralysis. The age of the 1 respondent is 76 years now. The age of the 1®^ petitioner is at now 47 years. The 2^^ petitioner was 15 years old and minor at the time this revision case was filed. By now he is aged more than 30 years. Thus, 2'^'^ petitioner is a major male person. Even presuming for moment argument sake, without admitting so, the 2*^^ petitioner is an illegitimate son of the 1®‘ respondent, yet because the 2"^^ petitioner is now major male person, is not entitled to any maintenance. St In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be 18. no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SDI- V SATYANARAYANA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Judge, Family court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Guntur 3. The Station House Officer, Vinjamooru Police Station, Nellore 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati 1. 5. One CC to SRI. Gade Venkateswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI. J. Pradeep Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI. P MOHAN RAO (Legal Aid) Advocate 8. One CC to SMT. ANUSHA DONTI REDDY (Legal Aid) [OPUC] [OPUC] Advocate 9. Three CD Copies §••• V .f. HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1243 of 2010 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE