NARAYANAN Vs. PARVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 1 is the wife and respondent 2 is the minor son of the petitioner. On a petition filed by them under S.125, Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Magistrate ordered the petitioner to pay them monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/-. He challenged the order in an application for revision before the Sessions Court, Tellicherry but subject to reducing the maintenance of the first respondent to Rs. 40/- and that of the second respondent to Rs. 30/- the Sessions Judge confirmed the order. The petitioner seeks to quash the orders of the courts below in this petition under S.482 of the Code in respect of the maintenance allowed to the first respondent, contending that her evidence on which they have proceeded provides no valid ground to award separate maintenance.

(2.) At the date of the petition the respondents were residing in the house of the first respondent's parents In the course of the proceedings before the Magistrate, obviously in an attempt at reconciliation the first respondent ("the respondent" for brevity) went from her parental house and resided in the petitioner's house for some time. She then returned to her parental house and the attempted reconciliation having failed, the trial of the petition was resumed. In the course of her evidence at the resumed hearing she explained why she left the petitioner's house. She stated that during this period the petitioner would not talk to her in spite of her attempts to talk with him, that he would not behave well towards her, or let her enter his room or sleep there and that when his mother interceded on her behalf the petitioner ignored her saying that she (the respondent) could complain to the court. In the cross examination she stated that if she approached the petitioner for talking he would ask her to get away without prattling.

(3.) The courts below have accepted this evidence and concurred in holding that it evidences sufficient reason entitling the respondent to live apart and claim separate maintenance. Counsel for the petitioner contested this view, arguing that the respondent had been getting food and shelter in his house; in other words she was being maintained by him in his house and that if her complaint was against the denial of cohabitation and the sharing of bed with him, as her evidence implies, that would not provide sufficient reason for leaving him for her parental house and founding a claim for separate maintenance under S.125. Counsel contended that the petitioner's obligation is only to maintain the respondent, as is clear from sub-s.(1) of S.125 and that as he has not defaulted in that obligation, there was no foundation for the respondents' claim. On this premise, counsel urged that the orders of the court below are without jurisdiction and that despite their concurrence, they should be quashed. In support of his contention he relied upon Arunachala Asari v. Anandayammal, AIR 1933 Mad. 688 .