PADMANABHAN KESAVAN Vs. BHARGAVI KRISHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein, mother and minor son obtained an order from the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, in M. C. No. 4 of 1978, directing the revision petitioner to pay them every month a sum of Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 respectively from the date of the order, under Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ). This order is now challenged.

(2.) THERE are certain admitted facts in the case. The revision petitioner (C. P. W. 1) and the 1st respondent herein (P. W. 1) were lawfully married on 29-6-1974 at a time when C. P. W. 1 was employed at Ambala. They resided together for a few days in the husband's house. He left the place to rejoin duty on 2-7-1974 and before that, took his wife and left her at her parents' house. He came down on leave and the spouses, lived together between April 1975 and June 1975. He retired from service and reached his native place on or about 11-9-1976. On 12-9-1976 he went to the wife's house. On 16-2-1977 he filed O. P. No. 4 of 1977 before the Munsiff, Karunagappally under the travancore Ezhava Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. The petition was dismissed as without jurisdiction and the revision petition is pending now in the High Court. On 12-4-1977 the wife sent Ext. D. 16 notice demanding maintenance for herself from the husband. On 19-4-1977 the child, namely the 2nd respondent herein was born.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended before me that the letters Exts. D. 1 to D. 3 and D. 10 would show that the wife was feeling intensely the absence of male company and that would probabilise the contention that she was living in adultery. THEse letters were denied by P. W. 1. Assuming the genuineness of these letters, they would only show the love and passion which the wife bore towards the husband. THE letters in no way would support the case of the husband that the wife must have been driven to have promiscuous relationship with other men. Regarding the allegation of adulterous life there is only the interested and hearsay testimony of C. P. W. 1 which is effectively rebutted by P. W. 1. Under the circumstances, by evidence of C. P. W. 1 could not be accepted without corroboration. THE learned Magistrate was therefore right in holding that this allegation has not been made out by the husband.