RADHAKRISHNA MENON Vs. KAMALAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has been ordered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hosdrug; to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month.

(2.) The respondent alleged that the revision petitioner had married her on 26-8-1961 and after a married life lasting but some nine months left her on 16-5-1962 and had since then refused to maintain her. She further alleged that he last resided with her at the house of her aunt at Morazha within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hosdrug. Among the objections raised by the revision petitioner was one regarding the jurisdiction of that court to try the case and this is the main point now urged before us.

(3.) The respondent Kamalakshi examined as Pw. 1 gave evidence that her marriage with the revision petitioner Radhakrishna Menon was solemnised at the Katalai Temple on 26-8-1961. He was at the time the Agricultural Extension Officer with head Quarters at Edapal in Palghat District. After the marriage, the couple went to live at the house of the wife's maternal aunt at Morazha. The husband who was employed at Edapal could not stay with her permanently but used to visit her for week ends. After some months she was taken to the house of her husband's sister at Palghat where she was put up for some three months. Here also her husband used to visit her off and on while having his official residence at Edapal. She was then taken back to Morazha where also her husband used to visit her. His last visit was during the first week of February 1962. Since then he had not gone to her house. That her husband used to go to her house for weekends is also shown by Ext P 5 one of his letters to her. In it he writes that he is unable to visit her on the following Saturday but will positively do so the next Saturday. Her evidence on the point is also corroborated by the testimony of Pw. 4, a trader, whose shop is near the house of Pw. 1's aunt. He says that Radhakrishna Menon used to come to visit Pw. 1 off and on and that the last of such visits was in February 1962. He is an independent witness having no motive whatever to swear to a false story. The husband's case is that he never visited the respondent. Ext. D 1 his fortnightly work journal is produced to show that he could not have visited Pw. 1 in February as he was engaged in his official work in other places. This record has failed to impress the learned Magistrate. It is seen that according to it the officer had worked on every single day in February even during Sundays. This is extremely unlikely and it appears to be, as found by the learned Magistrate, only a device to help the Officer to take the week ends off without obtaining permission from his superiors. The finding of the lower court that the revision petitioner last stayed with the respondent at Morazha has therefore to be upheld.