5. The main plea of the petitioner is that earlier the 1st respondent married one Satyanarayana and that marriage was subsisting as on 28-11-2003 and therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be termed as his legally wedded wife as contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and consequently, she cannot claim any maintenance as the marriage pleaded by her if any would be void on the ground of subsistence of her first marriage. In support of this plea of the petitioner, he not only gave his evidence but also examined R.W.2-Alla Brahmanandeswarareddy, a Fair Price Shop Dealer and R.W.3-P.Venkata Tirumalaramanuja Charyulu, the Village Revenue Officer and also filed Ex.R.1 Voters list. The learned Magistrate has rejected the evidence of R.W.2 on the ground that he being a Fair Price Shop Dealer, cannot be expected to know about prior marriage of the 1st respondent and his evidence was not inspiring any confidence. Even with regard to the evidence of R.W.3 and Ex.R.1 Voters’ list, the learned Magistrate held that they cannot be held to conclusively show the alleged first marriage of the 1st respondent. Learned Sessions Judge, more elaborately discussed the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3 and agreed with the view of the learned Magistrate. In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners again sought to place reliance upon the evidence of R.Ws.2 and
