PETRICIA Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition was filed by the petitioner herein before the Magistrate's Court, claiming maintenance to herself under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). The application was allowed and respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner as his wife from the date of petition. The said order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court. It was allowed, setting aside the order of the Magistrate's Court. The legality, propriety and correctness of the said order are challenged in this revision.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondent married petitioner at Vythiri Sub Registrar's Office, Their's was a love marriage. They executed an agreement of marriage also, as Exhibit P1. They lived as husband and wife in several places and a child was born in the wedlock. The child is in the custody of the respondent. The respondent was originally working in a parallel College and later, he obtained a job in a Bank. Thereafter, their relationship was strained. They separated after a long period of cohabitation as husband and wife. The respondent thereafter, neglected petitioner and he did not maintain her, though he had sufficient income. He refused to show the child to petitioner, but she meets the child with permission of his parents, once in a year. Petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the respondent.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter statement. The marriage is disputed. It was contended that the parties belong to different religions; petitioner is a Christian whereas respondent is a Hindu. They never got married and no marriage was registered, as alleged. They did not live as husband and wife and no child was born in the alleged wedlock. All the allegations were denied. The respondent's liability to maintain the petitioner is also disputed.