PUNNAKKAL SREEDHARAN Vs. VELLALI PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the petitioner respondents filed petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kannur, First respondent claims to be the wife of the petitioner. She claimed maintenance for herself and for the second respondent, who is alleged to be the child born to her through the petitioner. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance to both of them. That has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in Crl. R. P. 14 of 1990.

(2.) Petitioner contended that the first respondent has not established her marriage with him by any cogent evidence and hence on the basis of Ext. P1 registered document there cannot be any presumption of the marriage. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that Ext. P1 was really executed by the petitioner willingly and voluntarily the same cannot be considered as evidencing valid marriage in view of total lack of pleadings with respect to the solemnisation of the marriage.

(3.) Ext. P1 was executed on 3-10-1987. In the said document it is mentioned that the petitioner and the first respondent were in love with each other, that they were living as husband and wife and that it became necessary to execute the said document. It is also mentioned that the petitioner had agreed to accept the first respondent as his wife and that both of them agreed to live as husband and wife from the date of the document.