K P BHARGAVI AMMA Vs. C R KUTTIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed a petition M. C. 102 of 1961 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram for maintenance for herself and her child from the respondent. Though the respondent was served with summons he remained ex parte and an order of maintenance was passed against him. He paid the maintenance amount awarded for some months and then defaulted. Subsequently, he obtained a decree from the civil court at Jalgoan declaring that the marriage between himself and the petitioner had been dissolved by customary divorce and on the foot of that decree filed a petition M. C. 89 of 1963 under S.489 Cr. P. C. for cancellation of the maintenance allowed to the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after hearing the parties passed orders disallowing maintenance to the petitioner and fixing Rs. 12/- a month as maintenance for the child. Aggrieved with the order this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that S.489 Cr. P. C. cannot apply in this case as there is no proof of any change of circumstances after the passing of the order for maintenance. But what we are concerned here is Clause.2 of S.489 Cr. P. C. That clause reads:

(3.) The next ground of attack is that the petitioner and the respondent last resided at Paruthur amsom in Tirur Taluk and as such the civil Judge, Jalgoan had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act or later to convert it into a suit and pass a decree declaring that there was a divorce.