(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 322/09 on the files of family court, Palakkad. The above petition was filed by the respondent herein u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the Revision Petitioner. The 1st respondent is the wife and the 2nd respondent is the minor child of the Revision Petitioner. The 1st respondent claimed Rs. 2,500/- and the 2nd respondent claimed Rs. 2,000/- towards monthly maintenance allowance. The learned family court judge directed the Revision Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 1,000/- to the 2nd respondent as monthly allowance. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition. It is stated in the petition that the marriage between the Revision Petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 24/08/2008. After the marriage the Revision Petitioner was very suspicious about the 1st respondent. After one month of marriage when she had symptoms of pregnancy she informed the Revision Petitioner and got her examined by Dr. Geetha at Sarada Nursing Home and one Dr. Omana at Kottayi. While so on 13/01/2009, the 1st respondent and the Revision Petitioner went to the house of the 1st respondent On the next day, the Revision Petitioner left her there stating that he would come after two days to take her back. Then he informed that he has to come to the rituals of her brother for Sabarimala pilgrimage on 04/01/2009. But the Revision Petitioner never came back and took the 1st respondent or participated in the family function.
(2.) The Revision Petitioner filed an objection admitting the marriage but paternity of the child is disputed. The occupation and income of the Revision Petitioner alleged by the 1st respondent is also denied. According to him, the 1st respondent is working as a tailor and after marriage she is getting Rs. 3,000/- per month. He contended that the 1st respondent was never subjected to cruelty either physically or mentally as alleged. According to him, on the date of marriage at the mandapam itself, she vomited and the Revision Petitioner only thought that it is only due to the changes of atmosphere but even after she started vomiting at his house. Her family members were informed and her father and brother consulted Dr. Omana. Thereafter, she failed to have sexual intercourse with him and thereafter due to continuous compulsion she consented to have sexual intercourse on 3rd day. On the 4th day of marriage they went to her house as per custom and it was told that she is having periods and cannot have sexual intercourse and also told to separate the marital relationship. Even before completion of one month of marriage he had doubt that she was pregnant and on 03/10/2008 she was taken to Dr. Geetha of Sarada Nursing Home and before confirming the pregnancy test was positive, she took token in advance and the date of marriage was entered as 24/06/2008 falsely. When the Revision petitioner enquired about it she informed him that it was written wrongly by the nurse. After arriving home, she asked him what is the guarantee that the child in the womb is that of him. She also informed illicit relationship with her relative Babu and further told that she cannot live with the Revision petitioner and the relationship has to be separated. Thereafter they consulted Dr. Omana and there also she stated the date of marriage as 24/06/2008. Due to the above incident the whole dreams of the Revision petitioner has been fallen down and he was mentally upset and due to that he had heart attack and was treated at Thankam Hospital in ICU. After that the Revision petitioner filed a complaint to the women cell and settled the matter for agreeing to conduct DNA test after delivery and agreed that the paternity can be decided thereafter. The 1st respondent and family members came to his house on the next day and took all her ornaments and clothes. Then she filed a complaint u/s. 498A IPC. Since the facts was false no case was taken. According to him, it is highly necessary to conduct the DNA test.
(3.) The 1st respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. Revision petitioner was examined as CPW1. Exts. D1 to D4 were marked.