ORDER: A convict filed this criminal revision case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing his conviction and sentence imposed by both the Courts below. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the wife of revision petitioner and defacto-complainant. Though Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are shown in the cause title, it is mentioned in this revision that they are not necessary parties to this revision. 2. Facts leading to the present revision are as mentioned below:- This revision petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Amalapuram. He is resident of Kesanakurru Village. He married Smt M.Santhi Vijaya Ratna Kumari/Respondent No.2 on 10-05-1996 at his own house and lead marital life with her for about five years, during which time the spouses were blessed with two children who were twins. It is stated that at the time of solemnization of marriage, the parents of the girl had given Rs.50,000/- in the form of cash and ten tulas of gold towards dowry to this accused. 3. Five years subsequent to this marriage the revision petitioner became an addict of alcohol and he started demanding his wife to pay him an additional dowry of Rs.1 Lakh and he started harassing her by way of burning her body with cigar butts and used to beat her and used to behave like a sadist. Conciliation efforts on the part of parents of the girl and elders did not bring any result. Finding that his wife is not fetching money he demanded, he took her and children and dropped them at the house of her parents and warned her that she would not be permitted to live with him until she fetched money he demanded. With these allegations on 03.08.2001 the married woman lodged Ex.P1 complaint before learned Magistrate who in turn forwarded the same to the jurisdiction police and thereupon Peddapuram Police Station registered Cr.No.169 of 2001 and issued Ex.P2 F.I.R. The Sub-Inspector of Police examined several witnesses and on concluding investigation laid charge sheet before learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram who in turn took cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and registered C.C.162 of 2002. On appearance of accused/revision petitioner copies of documents were furnished and the charges that were framed under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC were read over and explained him in Telugu and he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. On appearance of accused/revision petitioner copies of documents were furnished and the charges that were framed under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC were read over and explained him in Telugu and he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, prosecution was called upon to sustain its case and it did accordingly by adducing the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and by exhibiting Exs.P1 and P2. The incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused/revision petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the truth of the evidence and contended that the woman/Pw.1 was not his wife. He was invited to adduce defence evidence but he did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The wife/victim/defacto-complainant testified as Pw.1. Her mother testified as Pw.2. A neighbour to Pw.2 testified as Pw.3 and a tenant of Pw.2 testified as Pw.4. The Head Constable who registered First Information Report testified as Pw.5. He examined the witnesses. Inspector of Police having who verified this investigation and laid charge sheet testified as Pw.6. 4. In her evidence Pw.1 stated that after leading conjugal life of five years at Kesanakurri Village the accused started harassing her by demanding additional dowry and he used to cause burns on her body by using a burning cigar and used to beat her and behave like a sadist and he was also addicted to alcohol and going to other woman. She said that she had informed the same to her mother and others. She further stated that the specific demand of accused was for Rs.1 Lakh towards additional dowry and as she failed to bring this money, he removed her and her children from matrimonial home and dropped them at the house of Pw.2/mother-in-law of accused. She said that there also he repeated his demands for additional dowry. About what she learnt from her daughter and about giving money and gold at the time of marriage and about the un-lawful demand of additional dowry on the part of accused, Pw.2 gave her evidence. Pw.3 being a neighbour to Pw.2 stated about accused dropping the victim woman and children at the house of Pw.2 and about his vices like drinking and harassing wife and about conciliation efforts on their part and refusal of accused to take back his wife and children unless he was paid, was deposed by Pw.3. Pw.3 being a neighbour to Pw.2 stated about accused dropping the victim woman and children at the house of Pw.2 and about his vices like drinking and harassing wife and about conciliation efforts on their part and refusal of accused to take back his wife and children unless he was paid, was deposed by Pw.3. Pw.4 being a tenant in the house of Pw.2 also spoke to this fact. 5. All the above referred evidence was considered by the learned trial Court. Before the learned trial Court, the accused took the defence that Pw.1 was not his wife. Finding that the evidence of Pw.1 found full support from the evidence of Pws.2 to 4, the learned trial Court recorded that beyond reasonable doubt the cruelty on the part of accused/revision petitioner was established. With reference to question as to whether accused and Pw.1 are wife and husband or not, it concluded in favour of the wife. In its judgment dated 24.07.2006 the charge under Section 498- A IPC was recorded as established and therefore after due hearing given on sentence, it punished him with rigorous imprisonment for six months and it further directed accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. As to Section 506 IPC the learned Magistrate recorded a finding of not guilty and acquitted the accused on that charge. 6. Aggrieved of that judgment, the convict preferred Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2006. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, heard the submissions on both sides and considered the judgment impugned before him and took pain to refer to entire evidence afresh and then concurred on all aspects with the findings of the trial Court. Before that appellate Court the strong contention raised by the convict was about absence of marital relationship. Referring to the provisions of law and various precedents, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed that even in the absence of marriage the evidence enabled him to see that for five long years the convict and Pw.1 lived together and gave birth to children and their cohabitation was never in dispute and therefore there was no escape from the charge under Section 498-A IPC and finally dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction, sentence rendered by the learned Magistrate. 7. 7. As against those two well considered judgments the convict has come up with this revision stating that Section 498-A IPC comes into operation only when there was marriage between man and woman and the evidence did not establish any such marriage between them and in fact Pw.1 had earlier filed M.C.No.11 of 2001 against him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and sought for maintenance and the learned Magistrate dismissed the case holding that the woman failed to prove her marriage with him. This aspect of the matter, according to learned counsel for revision petitioner, should have clinched the defence raised by him. He further stated that there was no independent witness for proving the alleged cruelty and this revision petitioner is an innocent lawyer. It is for these reasons he seeks setting aside of judgments of Courts below and acquit him of the charge. 8. As against this, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents submitted that the very few facts that were alleged as against this revision petitioner with reference to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC were fully established by cogent evidence and both the Courts below fully considered the evidence and reached to appropriate conclusions and in this revision no further reappreciation of any evidence is warranted. It is urged that this revision lacks merits and therefore deserves dismissal. 9. In the context of rival submissions, the points that falls for consideration are that:- “Whether there was no legally acceptable evidence in convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and whether the judgments of the Courts below resulted in any manifest injustice requiring interference?” 10. POINT:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty is punishable under Section 498- A IPC. Explanation appended to Section 498-A IPC indicates the definition of cruelty for the purpose of that Section. Harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is cruelty. Failure to satisfy his unlawful demand followed by harassment of woman is also defined as cruelty. Further, willful conduct of the man towards his woman if it is of such nature that it could drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health is also cruelty. Failure to satisfy his unlawful demand followed by harassment of woman is also defined as cruelty. Further, willful conduct of the man towards his woman if it is of such nature that it could drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health is also cruelty. It is for this offence this revision petitioner was prosecuted and punished. 11. Law presumes knowledge of law for every person. Every Court at the time of trial presumes every accused is innocent. The accused in this case is a practicing Advocate. Thus, he made a study of law and in the process, he knows how as a husband he has to conduct himself towards his wife and children. 12. The evidence of Pw.1 and the evidence of Pws.2 to 4 and that of Pw.5 indicated that Pw.1 and this revision petitioner lived for five years in a house belonging to the accused and through their wedlock they were blessed with children who are twins. While cross-examining these witnesses these facts were never challenged by the accused. Thus, cohabitation between revision petitioner and his woman/Pw.1 and that cohabitation resulting in birth of children and the legitimacy of children is not at dispute. Based on the evidence these facts are visible and remained undisputed and requisite findings were made by both the Courts below on this aspect. Since the man has been contending that a woman is not his wife, the Courts below, especially the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while considering the appeal had to bestow a lot of attention as to whether Section 498-A IPC would come into govern the conduct only if the man is married to the woman and not otherwise. Having dealt with it at length, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that the word employed in Section 498-A IPC is ‘woman’ and not ‘wife’ and in relation to that woman describing the male counter part the word used is husband and that is what 498-A IPC speaks about. He then narrated the precedent Reema Agarwal vs Anupam, 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 452 (SC). Thirupathi Venkata Rangadasu vs State of A.P., 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 475 (A.P). Bound by the ratio of those judgments, learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed that the prosecution under Section 498-A IPC of a man cohabitating with a woman, even if not married in the strict sense is valid. Thirupathi Venkata Rangadasu vs State of A.P., 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 475 (A.P). Bound by the ratio of those judgments, learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed that the prosecution under Section 498-A IPC of a man cohabitating with a woman, even if not married in the strict sense is valid. Learned Magistrate having discussed the entire evidence concluded that there was valid marriage between Pw.1 and this accused/revision petitioner. The revision petitioner while alleging that a learned Magistrate had already recorded that they were not spouses in M.C.No.11 of 2001 and therefore the above stated findings are incorrect. He can be permitted to argue this only when he had exhibited that judgment between the parties as a piece of evidence on his behalf and not otherwise. The revision petitioner though a practicing Advocate and though having been defended by a competent counsel on his behalf, did not choose to exhibit such a judgment copy as document. Pw.1 in her cross-examination categorically stated that there was no finding given by the Magistrate to the effect that she and accused are not wife and husband. Learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to this maintenance case and he recorded a paragraph from the judgment of the learned Magistrate in that maintenance case. That is impermissible because that judgment was never made part of the evidence. The whole reading of the entire case clearly established that there was marriage between spouses and even if there was no marriage, the relationship between revision petitioner and Pw.1 is one that is enough to bring the case within the ambit of Section 498- A IPC. In this revision, the counsel for revision petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any legal principle to argue anything contrary to it. 13. The plain and simple evidence of Pw.1 and other witnesses indicated this revision petitioner burning the body of his wife with burning cigars. The reason spoken to by witness was that he was demanding Rs.1 Lakh as additional dowry. As one could see from the cross examination of Pw.1, there was nothing on record to see that she was an earning woman. Record discloses that, this revision petitioner is an earning man by his practice of law as an Advocate. It is in that context, one has to consider the evidence of Pw.1. She said that he was asking her to bring Rs.1 Lakh. Record discloses that, this revision petitioner is an earning man by his practice of law as an Advocate. It is in that context, one has to consider the evidence of Pw.1. She said that he was asking her to bring Rs.1 Lakh. Throughout the trial and thereafter nothing was urged on behalf of the accused as to for what purpose he was asking his wife, a non-earning member, to get Rs.1 Lakh for him. Thus, the demand for Rs.1 Lakh by an earning husband from his non-earning wife is certainly an unlawful demand. The unlawful demand for money need not be necessarily dowry or additional dowry. Burning the body with cigar butts and asking the wife to fetch the money is harassment to coerce his wife to meet the unlawful demand of money. This is squarely governed by Section 498-A IPC and rightly recognized by both the Courts below. How that finding could be called as perverse is to be shown by the revision petitioner which he completely failed to show. The argument on his behalf is only on the point that there was no independent witness corroborating the version of his wife. As long as the evidence of wife/Pw.1 was found not tainted by ill motive and as long as there was nothing making her a witness of no credit, no Court of law ever required under law to look for any further corroboration. Why the evidence of Pw.1 should not be considered is not demonstrated in argument of the revision petitioner. It is in these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the submissions made for revision petitioner. 14. The judgments of the Courts below referred to the entire evidence on record, referred to the appropriate legal principles, both statute and precedent, and arrived at appropriate conclusions. There is neither misreading of evidence nor leaving any evidence which was material. Therefore, this revision Court finds no reason to interfere. Point is answered against the revision petitioner. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 04.12.2006 of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2006 and the judgment dated 24-07-2006 of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram in C.C.No.162 of 2002. Point is answered against the revision petitioner. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 04.12.2006 of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District in Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2006 and the judgment dated 24-07-2006 of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram in C.C.No.162 of 2002. Revision petitioner/Madura Trivikrama Prasad Rao shall surrender before the trial Court and submit himself on or before 17.03.2023, failing which the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram shall take coercive process against him and secure his presence for execution of punishment. 16. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Courts below on or before 13.03.2023. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.