ORDER : Complainant in Crime No.248/2007 is the Revision Petitioner, who has questioned the order passed in Crl.A.No.5/2010 dated 02.02.2012. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Revision Petition are as under : A complaint came to be filed by the Revision Petitioner to Sindhanur Town Police on 30.12.2007 alleging that complainant is the wife of the accused and her marriage has taken place in the year 2004 before the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, she joined the matrimonial home but there were no issues to couple. She further contended that some time in June 2004 accused took her from Gangavati to Sindhanur and kept her in a rented house and was visiting to Gangavati for his office work from Sindhanur. She also contended that on account of not begetting the children, he used to pick up quarrel with her and used to abuse in filthy language and used to assault her. The owner of the house and others have pacified the quarrel and advised him to look after her properly. She further contended that she has a suspicion that accused is having illicit relationship with somebody else. On 30.12.2007 at about 10:00 am, accused came to the house and abused her in filthy language and told her that she has to sign a divorce paper. Accordingly, she sought for action against the accused. Police registered the case under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of IPC and after detailed investigation, they filed charge sheet. 3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and framed charges. Since, the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined in all eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and relied on ten documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to 10. Accused statement was recorded wherein accused denied all the incriminatory materials that were put him. 5. After hearing the arguments, learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of IPC and sentenced the accused to one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. 6. Being aggrieved by the conviction judgment, accused filed appeal before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Raichur. 6. Being aggrieved by the conviction judgment, accused filed appeal before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Raichur. Learned Sessions Judge secured the records from the Trial Court and after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the conviction order. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant (victim) is before this Court in this Revision Petition. 7. Office of this Court, did not raise any objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition as proper course should have been to file an appeal against the order of acquittal by the victim. However, this Court admitted the matter on 24.06.2013. 8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, argued that even though it is styled as Revision Petition, this Court is required to consider the case of Revision Petitioner as an appeal. He argued that the First Appellate Court has passed an order without properly appreciating the material on record. He further argued that the material evidence available on record was sufficient enough to prove all ingredients required to establish the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 504 IPC. Therefore, the order of the First Appellate Court is illegal. 9. He further argued that the finding of the First Appellate Court that there was no marriage of the Revision Petitioner with the accused is without any basis and in the absence of any positive evidence, finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is incorrect and prayed for allowing the revision petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused supported the impugned judgment and stated that there is no evidence available on record to show that the Revision Petitioner is the wife of the accused and prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 11. In view of the rival contentions, the sole point that would arise for consideration in this petition is as under: "Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that there was no relationship of husband and wife between accused and the complainant and thus, there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC is suffering from patent defect, error of jurisdiction and illegality and thus, calls for interference? 12. Answer to the above point is in the Negative for the following: : REASONS: 13. 12. Answer to the above point is in the Negative for the following: : REASONS: 13. In order to reach a finding that there was no relationship of husband and wife between the complainant and the accused in this regard, he has relied on the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.71/2007, the relevant paragraph of the First Appellate Court, which deals with the said aspect of the matter is at paragraph No.7 and same is culled out hereunder for ready reference: 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the certified copy of judgment passed by Senior Civil Judge at Lingasugur wherein Gaddemma has filed the suit in OS No.71/2007 against the victim in this case for declaration and injunction which was decree that she is not entitled to claim any right over the landed properties and at the most, he can claim maintenance from her son. It is the established principle that the judgment of Civil Court is having binding affect in the criminal proceedings. Thus, the judgment establishes the locus standi of the victim in this case to claim the status of wife. If the victim in this case was really the wife of the appellant, then the civil court would not have passed the decree against the victim. Therefore, the status of the victim is shakened. Therefore, the offence U/s 498A IPC cannot be held as proved. She has admitted in the evidence that the accused is having wife and children, but she did not give that information to the police. Thus it appears that she mislead the police to book him U/s 498A IPC. She has admitted for having lodged the complaint before the CTO stating that he is having wife and children. Therefore, her position and her status to claim maintenance etc., weakened her own statement. Regarding abuse in filthy language, what words uttered by the accused is not appearing in the chief examination and she directly went to state that the accused assaulted stating that she was living with him for 2 years and she got registered the marriage and produced the document. But with what words the accused abused her is not disclosed. Therefore, even the offence U/s 504 IPC also cannot be made out. PW.3 Earappa who rented his building for her residence has turned hostile to the prosecution. But with what words the accused abused her is not disclosed. Therefore, even the offence U/s 504 IPC also cannot be made out. PW.3 Earappa who rented his building for her residence has turned hostile to the prosecution. But in the cross examination admitted that they were staying in his building on rental basis and she could not get children. Staying together and getting no children is not sufficient to hold that the accused was abusing as those abusive words are not appearing in the evidence of PW.3 also. PW.2 is the mother of the victim and has stated that he gave his daughter to the appellant and they were living in rented building and her daughter could not get children and no were stated that the accused uttered with what words. Even this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution, but not made out filthy words alleged to have been uttered by the accused. Nothing is elicited from the evidence of these PWs.1 to 3. even PW.4 father of the victim does not speak about the abusive words. When the victim has not stated about what words the accused abused, the offence U/s 504 IPC is also not made out. The relationship of the victim with the accused is not husband and wife and therefore, even the offence U/s 498A IPC is not made. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment does not stand to reasoning. 14. On perusal of the said paragraph, it is crystal clear that a duly constituted Court passed a decree that the Revision Petitioner/complainant is not the wife of the accused which is a sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 498A of IPC. 15. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is unable to point out what is the patent defect, error of jurisdiction or illegality that has crept in judgment of First Appellate Court in reaching out such a finding from the material available on record. In fact the very complaint of the Revision Petitioner was with suppressed information. Accordingly, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court. Hence, point is answered in negative and following order is passed : ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed.