REBEKKA BEBI BAI Vs. JAPAMONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners were petitioners 1 and 2 in m. C. 9 of 1965 on the file of the Addl. First Class Magistrate of Trivandrum. THE first petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner who is a minor child aged about 5 years. THE petition in the court below was under S. 488 Crl. P. C. claiming maintenance from the counter-petitioner who is stated to be the husband of the first petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner.

(2.) THE parties are Christians belonging to the C. S. I. Sabha of South Travancore. THE first petitioner was married by the counter-petitioner at her residence on 81162 under the customary mode of tying the thali and presentation of cloth. THEy were continuing as man and wife ever since; but of late, the counter-petitioner began to neglect the petitioners and hence the petitioners were constrained to resort to the court by the petition under S. 488 of the Code.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate has made much of the fact that the date of marriage was not mentioned in the notice issued to the counter-petitioner. In the petition also the exact date is not given but the year alone has been mentioned. It was in her deposition before court that the exact date was put forward for the first time. I do not think the entire evidence can be discredited on the failure to give the date of marriage in the early stages of the enquiry. When the factum of marriage is proved by unassailable evidence the non-mention of the date in the notice or in the petition itself is not of serious consequence. THE oral evidence of pws. 3 to 5, which I see no reason to discard, stands supplemented by Ex. P-1 the registered udampadi. THE relevant portion of the udampadi runs: Pw. 2 who is a church mission worker is an attestor to this document. A part from proving the document he has also given other important evidence in connection with the practice obtaining in the community. THE counter-petitioner has a case that unless the marriage takes place in the church it will not be recognised as a valid marriage by the community; but this witness as the church mission worker would tell us that there is nothing wrong in the marriage taking place at the residence; but in such cases ratification will have to be got of the church and (hat could be had on payment of a penalty.