VELUKUTTY Vs. PRASANNAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the husband and the counter petitioner is his divorced wife. At a time when the marital relationship was subsisting the counter petitioner filed MC. No. 81 of 1978 for maintenance against the petitioner for herself and her minor child under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Calicut. The Magistrate refused maintenance to the counter petitioner accepting the contention of the petitioner that she is residing separately without justifiable reasons. Maintenance was allowed to the child alone. That order was not challenged by any other proceedings and it has become final. ;

(2.) Thereafter alleging desertion by the petitioner the counter petitioner filed OP. No. 239 of 1980 before the District Judge, Kozhikode for judicial separation under S.10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was allowed and judicial separation was ordered. Then the petitioner filed OP. No. 69 of 1982 before the same court for dissolution of the marriage under S.13(1)(a)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that they have not resumed cohabitation after the order for judicial separation. In that OP. the counter petitioner filed LA. No. 913 of 1984 for interim alimony. That was allowed and interim alimony was granted till the date on which dissolution was ordered. The marriage was dissolved by the order in that OP.

(3.) Thereafter the counter petitioner filed M. C. No. 18 of 1984 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Calicut claiming maintenance from the petitioner in her capacity as divorced wife. The petitioner opposed that claim; but the Magistrate allowed the petition and ordered monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-. The revision petition has been filed against that order.