SREEDHARAN Vs. PUSHPA BAI ALIAS LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under S.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order for maintenance passed against him in M C. 35 of 1975 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Neyyattinkara which has been confirmed in revision by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent belong to the Nadar community. The petitioner is a Hindu by birth while the respondent professes Christianity The finding of the Trial Court is that there was a ceremony of marriage according to the custom of the community when the petitioner tied a thali round the neck of the respondent and presented a cloth to her. After the ceremony, the petitioner and the respondent went to the Sub Register office and executed Ext. P1, a marriage udampady They lived together as husband and wife and a child was born to them. Thereafter, a rift took place. The petitioner, according to the respondent, began to ill treat her and lived with a mistress by name Omana. The respondent left him and claimed maintenance for herself and the child. The petitioner admitted the marriage udampady and the birth of the child but denied that there was a ceremony of marriage, or a marriage in law. He contended that the respondent had only the status of a mistress and not that of a wife and as such, she was not entitled to claim maintenance. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Neyyattinkara followed the decisions in Kunhiraman Nair v. Anna kutty ( 1967 KLT 24 ) and Maung Pahtan v. Ma San ( 40 CriLJ 653 ) and held that the respondent is the legally wedded wife for purposes of S.125, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- to the respondent and Rs. 30/- to the child. The order granting maintenance to the respondent alone is challenged in these proceedings.

(3.) The contention put forward by the petitioner is that there could be no legal marriage between him and the respondent in view of their difference in religion According to him, even admitting that there was a marriage ceremony preceding the execution of Ext. P1, marriage udampady, the respondent did not acquire the status of a wife and as such, she is not entitled to maintenance under S.125, Code of Criminal Procedure.