M A MOHAN RAM Vs. SHANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In CrlMC.5 of 1970 filed under S.488 CrlPC(Old) in the Court of the Addl First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, there were three petitioners and one respondent. The averments in the petition which was filed on 19-2-1970 are quite brief, and may be set out fairly in extenso as below:

(2.) The first petitioner Shanthakumari is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent M.A Mohan Ram and was married to him under Hindu rites in June. 1963 in Fraser Town, Civil Station. Bangalore. bThe first petitioner and respondent last resided as a wedded couple at No.192 (old 133). Naravana Pillai Street Civil Station, Bangalore Petitioners 2 and 3 son and daughter Ramganesh. aged about 6 years and Kumudini aged about 2 vears are the minor children of the 1st petitioner by the said marriage with the respondent. Ever since her marriage the respondent has been treating the first petitioner most inhumanly In Decr 1968 the respondent beat the first petitioner and sent her awav with the children to her parents' house He refused to maintain the petitioners which in law he was bound to do. The respondent is working in the Hindustan Machine Tools, (HMT) Bangalore and is drawing over Rs.400. He owns immovable property also. The first petitioner and the children (petitioners 2 and 3) require at least Rs 250 for their food and clothing and also the education of the children, and an amount of Rs.250 per month is claimed on this account.

(3.) The respondent filed his obiections dt.8-7-1970. The averments there are also brief and may usefullv be set out fairlv in extenso The allegation that the first petitioner is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent and was married to him under Hindu rites in June 1963 at the place mentioned are false and are emphatically denied. The respondent belongs to the Hindu Mudaliar community and on enquiry, it is learnt that the first petitioner belongs to the Christian Catholic community. The alleged marriage is not a legally constituted marriage, even if the first petitioner attempts to prove the existence of the marriage. It is also denied that the first petitioner and he lived as wife and husband. He did not cohabit with her to beget petitioners 2 and 3. He denies having last resided with the petitioners at 192, Narayana Pillai St, Civil Stn, Bangalore. Petitioners 2 and 3 are not his children, He denies having ill-treated the first petitioner, beating her and driving the petitioners out of his house. He is neither in law nor on facts bound to maintain thf petitioners. The allegation that he is living with one Pushpa in Munireddypalya is also stoutly denied The amount of his emoluments is exaggerated and so also the quantum of maintenance claimed by the petitioners