A S N NAIR Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Trichur in It C. No. 18 of 1978 lied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code) to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 80/-per month to his wife, the respondent herein. This order is challenged now. The revision petition came up for consideration before one of us (Bhat, J.) and the matter was referred to a Division Bench as there appeared to be an apparent conflict between the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on one of the points involved in this case.

(2.) THE revision petitioner (C. P. W. 1) married the respondent herein (P. W. 1) On 13-6-1971 in accordance with the customs of their community. Two children were born in the wed-lock. M. C. 11 of 1976 filed by the wife before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur claiming maintenance from C. P. W. l under Section 125 of the Code, was allowed. In Cri. R. P. No. 55 of 1976 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur an offer made by the husband was considered and he was directed to reserve tickets within a period fixed by the court for the wife and children to go to Bangalore where he is employed. The reservation was not made and the Cri. R. P. No. 55 of 176 was dismissed. C. p. W. 1 filed Cri. M. P. No. 639 of 1977 before this Court under Section 482 of the Code. The petition was disposed of, allowing C. P. W. 1 to take his wife and children with him to Bangalore within a particular time. He took them to Bangalore and they lived together.

(3.) P. W. I alleges that after some the he brought her to Trichur and by fraud, coercion and intimidation obtained her signatures on some documents without her consent and he left her and the children at her father's house and later came to know that one of the papers so signed (Ext. D2) is a divorce agreement. Immediately she filed M. C. 18 of 1978 for maintenance. C. P. W- 1 resisted the claim on the ground that by virtue of Ex. D2, by mutual consent the marriage has been dissolved and they are living separately and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance from him. At the stage of evidence he offered to maintain her in case she lives with him. Learned Magistrate on a consideration of the entire evidence held that Ext. D2 does not make out a valid divorce and the marriage is stil] subsisting, that there was no agreement between the parties to live secarately. that the offer made by C. p. W. 1 is not bona fide, that she has no means of her own and he has means to maintain her and accordingly ordered him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month for her.