- (1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the respondent in M.C.No.9 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.
(2.) The maintenance case was filed by the first respondent herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that there is no sufficient material to prove that there is legal and valid marriage between the first respondent and the petitioner Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25-10-1995, the first respondent preferred Crl.R.P.No.141 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition granting maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to the first respondent by observing that the material available on record is sufficient for granting maintenance holding that the first respondent and the petitioner were living as wife and husband for a long period. The appellate Court also relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Shanmuga Udayar v. Sivanandam and another, 1994 AIR Madras 123 wherein it was held that man and woman continuously living together and cohabiting for number of years, presumption that they are husband and wife. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court dated 26-03-1998, preferred the present revision challenging its validity and legality by contending that there is no sufficient material to establish that there was valid and legal marriage between the first respondent and himself and that the appellate Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the material is sufficient to grant maintenance.
(3.) After going through the judgments of both the Courts below, the evidence, pleadings and the material available on record, I am convinced that the appellate court rightly came to a conclusion that the first respondent is entitled for maintenance and the decision of the Madras High Court, referred to above, squarely covers the above aspect irrespective of the proof of marriage. The first respondent is entitled for maintenance since she lead conjugal life with the petitioner for more than 30 years and performed the marriage of children etc.;