K. B. SIDDAPPA, J. ( 1 ) P. W. 1 is the complainant. She filed a complaint against A-1 alleging that he married her on 11-9-1994 and also harassed and caused mental agony to her. Therefore she filed a complaint for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 494, ipc. ( 2 ) SHE admitted in her cross-examination that A-1 married A-2 on 8-9-1994. This admission was taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate and held that the marriage of P. W. 1 with A-1 is invalid as there was subsisting marriage between A-1 and A-2 admittedly. Now the marriage of p. W. 1 with A-1 is invalid. Therefore there is no question of P. W. 1 being the wife of A-1 and the question of harassment coming under the ambit of Section 498-A or bigamy under Section 494 does not arise. The lower court rightly held so. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is evidence to show that P. W. 1 and A-1 lived together for considerable time. Therefore the presumption under Section 50 of Evidence act arises. Therefore even though there is no valid marriage, still P. W. 1 can maintain complaint against A-1 on both counts. In support of his contention he relied on the bench judgment of this Court in Vungarala yadukondalu vs. State of A. P. . In this case the accused and deceased were living as wife and husband. The accused inflicted cruelty and harassed her resulting in committing of the suicide by his mistress. The Court held the accused can be convicted under section 498-A. This case is distinguishable on facts. In this case there is no valid marriage between A-1 and A-2. It is a simple case where man and woman lived together for considerable time. In such case the bench held that the accused could be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A. ( 4 ) RELIANCE was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Vadde Rama Rao vs. State of A. P. 2. In this case accused himself admitted, deceased to be his wife. There is evidence of father of the deceased and other relations stating that there was solemnisation of marriage by exchange of garlands. Further there was evidence to show that both the persons lived together and there was termination of preganancy. In this case accused himself admitted, deceased to be his wife. There is evidence of father of the deceased and other relations stating that there was solemnisation of marriage by exchange of garlands. Further there was evidence to show that both the persons lived together and there was termination of preganancy. In those circumstances, it was held that the relationship of wife and husband was established in terms of Section 50 of the evidence Act. ( 5 ) THIS case is also distinguishable on facts. As earlier held there is no valid marriage subsisting between A-1 and A-2. The ratio of the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case. The lower Court rightly considered the case on facts and law and rightly acquitted the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. ( 6 ) THE revision case is dismissed.