NARAYANAN Vs. RAJALEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in M. C. 9 of 1975 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. The respondent herein, P. Rajalakshmi Ammal, claiming to be his wife, filed the petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. The parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their rank in M.C. No. 9 of 1975. The facts of the case as disclosed from the materials relied on by the petitioner are given below:

(2.) The petitioner is the daughter of one Mahadeva Iyer and she was residing with her parents and PW. 4, her brother at Trivandrum. Mahadeva Iyer died in November 1972 leaving his wife, two sons, PW. 2, Ramakrishnan and PW. 4, Veeramani Iyer and the petitioner, his only daughter. PW 2, the brother of the petitioner is employed at Madurai. After the death of Mahadeva Iyer, the petitioner continued to live at Trivandrum with her mother and PW. 4, her brother. She was being looked after by PW. 4, who himself had no regular job. Negotiations were going on regarding the marriage of the petitioner even before the death of her father. The petitioner's mother has six brothers employed in different places Reference is made in the course of the proceedings to four of them, Subramonia Iyer, who is an Advocate practising at Madras. Viswanathan also employed in Madras, Kanakasabhapathi examined as PW. 3 in the case living at Trivandrum and Ganesh employed in the Railways at Chaktadharpur near Calcutta. Of the two sisters of the mother, one is at Ceylon and the other, one Radha, is married to Mahadevan of Madras. The maternal uncles mentioned already and Radha who has no daughters of her own were anxious about the well being of the petitioner. Even prior to the death of the father, uncle Viswanathan had written Ext. P2 letter on 13-11-1971 to PW. 4 suggesting a marriage alliance between the petitioner and the respondent who is none other than his wife's brother. The respondent was then employed in M/S. Indian Oxygen Ltd., at Madras and was living in the house No. 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street. Royapuram, Madras along with his sister and brother inlaw. According to the petitioner, negotiations were continued after the death of the rather. Their horoscopes compared favourably. Respondent agreed to marry the petitioner. In view of her recent bereavement, it was decided that the ceremony of marriage should be simple and moderate. The indigent condition of the petitioner did not permit incurring of much expenditure The uncles at Madras decided to have the marriage ceremony conducted in the house of Subramonia Iyer. The petitioner went to Madras with her brothers, Pws 2 and 4 and her uncle, Pw. 3, Kanakasabapthy The marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites on 11-2-1972. After the marriage, Pws. 2 and 4 left Madras and the petitioner began her residence with the respondent. Her uncle Viswanathan and family moved to another house. For about a year things went on somewhat smoothly. Thereafter the attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner changed and he began to treat her with cruelty. In January, 1974 the respondent turned out the petitioner from bis house and she was forced to come back to Trivandrum. Repeated efforts to persuade the respondent to take her back did not succeed. She sent a registered notice through a lawyer to the respondent claiming maintenance. The respondent in his reply, Ext. P1 denied the marriage and even casual acquaintance with the petitioner. He claimed hearsay knowledge that the petitioner was a mentally weak person who had undergone treatment for mental disease. He stated in the notice that he was a happily married man with a six year old son and, therefore, there was no occasion for his marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance as stated above. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that the marriage bad not been proved. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of dismissal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, who disposed of the revision petition set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and allowed the revision petition. The respondent was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the petitioner from 12-3-1975, the date of the petition. The above order is challenged, in this revision petition.

(3.) The main question involved is whether the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is sustainable or whether it is liable to be vacated on the ground that no marriage has been established