ORDER : This petition filed by the petitioner Smt. Chella Rangamma against respondent praying the Court to set aside the order dated 8.7.2015 on the main petition, passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, in Crl. M.C. No. 96/2009 and to allow the petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and grant maintenance as prayed for in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts as pleaded in the petition that in the year 1979, as per the Hindu religion at Chinna Kondalahpalli village in Ananthpur district of Andhra Pradesh state, the petitioner married the respondent and joined the society of the respondent at Kampli up to 1996 and at the time of married life petitioner delivered female child by name Bharati. The petitioner/wife of the respondent filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, against the respondent in Crl. M.C. No. 96/2009 with a prayer for monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her in view of he failed to maintain her at her old age. The respondent herein who was the respondent in the original proceedings also filed objections to the main petition totally denying the relationship with the petitioner that she is his wife. In view of total denial of relationship, on 12.9.2009, the petitioner also filed application under section 293 of Cr.P.C. read with section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for DNA test of the respondent with the blood of herself and her daughter in order to conduct DNA test and submit the report regarding paternity. As per the order dated 30.9.2009, the trial Court rejected the request of the petitioner regarding conducting of DNA test on the ground that proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and in such proceedings strict proof of marriage need not be necessary and further unless the trial has been concluded, the application filed by the petitioner does not survive for consideration, as it is premature one. Then the parties led their evidence. On the side of the petitioner, she has been examined as PW.1 and also two witnesses were examined and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.6 were got marked. Then the parties led their evidence. On the side of the petitioner, she has been examined as PW.1 and also two witnesses were examined and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.6 were got marked. On the side of the respondent, he has been examined on commission by the advocate who has been appointed to record his evidence and also the other witnesses were examined and the documents Ex.D.1 to D.14 were got marked. However by its order dated 8.7.2015, the Court below dismissed the main petition and aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the criminal revision petition on the grounds as mentioned in the petition at grounds No.1 to 8 and sought to allow the petition and to set aside the order of the JMFC Court and to grant her maintenance as prayed for in her petition before the trial Court. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, so also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that looking to the pleadings, oral evidence of the petitioner and her witnesses, so also the documents produced, they all go to prove the factum that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and in spite of such material placed before the trial Court, the trial Court wrongly dismissed the main petition itself. Learned counsel drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by the trial Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court on point No.1 for consideration wherein it is held by the learned trial Judge, petitioner was able to establish that there is some relationship between herself and the respondent. He also made the submission that looking to the very finding recorded on point No.1 for consideration, learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the petition. 5. Learned counsel further made submission that so far as the observation of the trial Court regarding the capacity and the income of the respondent is concerned, the trial Court observed while answering other points that the respondent is suffering from ailments, he is not in a position to move about, even his evidence is taken by an advocate appointed as commissioner and it is also observed that no documentary evidence is produced before the Court that he was having any income. Hence the learned counsel submitted that now the petitioner traced the documents that the respondent is having landed property jointly along with other members and it is measuring to the extent of 6 acres. Hence the learned counsel submitted, dismissal of the petition is patently illegal and it is also his submission that in such summary proceedings the detailed documentation as well as the detailed observation regarding strict proof of the marriage is not at all required. 6. In support of his contention learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein also relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is filed along with a memo dated 13.9.2017. The first decision is (2014) 1 SCC 188 case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another. The relevant paragraph is paragraph No.13. The second decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is dated 7.10.2010 rendered in the case of Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha reported in LAWS (SC) 2010 1041. He drawn attention of this Court regarding the relevant paragraph No.13. Hence the learned counsel made submission by relying upon the paragraph No.13, 43 and 44 of the decision relied. Hence the learned counsel finally submitted to allow the revision petition, set aside the order impugned in the revision and grant the maintenance as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made submission that there is no any sort of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. She is not the wife of the respondent. The petitioner was given in marriage to another person, through him she got the female child. Learned counsel submitted that after the death of her husband she came for the purpose of coolie work and sought shelter and on humanitarian ground the respondent provided some shelter to the petitioner herein. 8. Learned counsel further made submission that the petitioner created false documents i.e., school records to show that Bharati is the daughter of respondent herein. In that connection learned counsel also drawn attention of this Court to document Ex.D.14 and made submission that the very school authorities gave the intimation that the said girl Bharati has not at all studied in their school and their school is also from 1st to 4th standard only. Hence the counsel made submission that this document clearly goes to show the falsehood of the document obtained from the school authorities. Hence the counsel made submission that this document clearly goes to show the falsehood of the document obtained from the school authorities. He also made submission that even earlier the petitioner herein along with her daughter filed a civil suit, so also the criminal miscellaneous proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that, by passing a memo in the said suit the suit came to be withdrawn and the learned counsel submitted that in the memo the petitioner has stated that through mistake she has filed the said suit and the criminal proceedings. 9. Hence he submitted, once she has accepted there she is not the wife of the present respondent herein, again she cannot claim that she is the wife of the respondent herein. Hence the learned counsel submitted that looking to the entire materials placed on record, absolutely there is no materials placed on record, so she is not entitled for maintenance amount from the respondent herein. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent is married and he is having children. Hence it is his contention, in view of these material it cannot be assumed that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decisions filed along with list of authorities at Sl. No. 1 to 5. He drawn attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs in the said decisions. 10. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, the oral evidence of the parties adduced before the JMFC Court, so also the documents produced on both sides and considered the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein. So also considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsels on both sides at the bar and the decisions which they have relied upon in support of their contentions. 11. Looking to the order of the trial Court, the trial Court framed the points for consideration which are five in number. The first point for consideration is, whether the petitioner proves that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. 11. Looking to the order of the trial Court, the trial Court framed the points for consideration which are five in number. The first point for consideration is, whether the petitioner proves that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Looking to the findings on this point No.1 for consideration, the learned Judge refers to the oral evidence of the parties, so also the admissions in the oral evidence of both the sides and ultimately it was recorded that though the petitioner was not able to prove her marriage with the respondent with satisfactory material, the material placed on record however goes to show that she has stayed with the respondent for considerable period of time and she is having some sort of relationship with the respondent herein. Accordingly, to that extent the learned Judge refers to the documents produced on the side of the petitioner herein, so also the oral evidence of both sides and recorded the findings partly in affirmative in respect of point no.1 for consideration. So this goes to show that the learned trial Judge after perusing the materials on both sides is of the opinion that there is some sort of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. 12. Looking to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, in the first decision at paragraph No.13 it is observed by their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “on this basis, it was pleaded before us that this matter be also tagged along with the aforesaid case. However, in the facts of the present case, we do not deem it proper to do so as we find that the view taken by the courts below is perfectly justified. We are dealing with a situation where the marriage between the par ties has been proved. However, the petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage. On these facts, in our opinion, he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong. Our reasons for this course of action are stated hereinafter.” So their lordships have also referred to the other material placed and discussed in the subsequent paragraphs in the said decision. 13. On these facts, in our opinion, he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong. Our reasons for this course of action are stated hereinafter.” So their lordships have also referred to the other material placed and discussed in the subsequent paragraphs in the said decision. 13. So also the another decision at paragraph No.13, it is discussed in the said paragraph, “in Lieutenant C.W. Campbell v. John A.G. Campbell (1867) Law Rep.2 HL 269, also known as the Breadalbane case, the House of Lords held that cohabitation, with the required repute, as husband and wife, was proof that the par ties between themselves had mutually contracted the matrimonial relation. A relationship which may be adulterous at the beginning may become matrimonial by consent. This may be evidenced by habit and repute. In the instant case both the appellant and the first respondent were related and lived in the same house and by a social custom were treated as husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized with Katha and Sindur. Therefore, following the ratio of the decisions of the House of Lords, this Court thinks there is a very strong presumption in favour of marriage. The House of Lords again observed in Captain De Thoren v. The Attorney-General (1876) 1 AC 686, that the presumption of marriage is much stronger than a presumption in regard to other facts”. The other paragraphs in the said decision at paragraph No.46 their lordships observed, “we are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term wife to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125”. 14. 14. Looking to the principles enunciated in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is held by the learned JMFC Court that there is a sort of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent herein, the learned JMFC Court totally dismissed the petition on the ground mainly that the respondent is suffering from ailments, he cannot move about and there is no material placed by the petitioner to show that he is having the landed property or is having some source of income for payment of maintenance amount. This view taken by the JMFC court is not correct. 15. Apart from that, now the petitioner filed the application and the documents are produced before this Court to show that the respondent is having landed property. The record of rights are produced, so also the encumbrance certificates and other documents in respect of the landed property are produced by the petitioner. He has also produced the extract in respect of the house property also. Therefore, as these documents produced before this Court, in view of the production of these documents evidence cannot be recorded by this Court in respect of those documents in this proceedings. It is only before the trial Court the further evidence can be recorded by the party in respect of those documents giving an opportunity to both the sides. Therefore this revision petition is allowed. 16. The order passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hosapete, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Court for fresh disposal. 17. The learned JMFC Court has to consider the documents produced along with the list and opportunity has to be given to both the sides to adduce further evidence, if any, by both the sides and then he has to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 18. Since the matter is claiming maintenance, the learned JMFC Court shall take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of records of the case.