AMMINI Vs. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalapuzha, by filing a petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her allegations in the petition filed before the court were that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, that he is neglecting her, that she is unable to maintain herself, that the respondent is possessed of sufficient means and that he should be directed to pay maintenance. The petitioner's claim was disputed by respondent contending that there was no valid marriage between them, that the petitioner is a Teacher in a Government School, that she has sufficient means to maintain herself and that he has no liability to pay maintenance to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner gave evidence as PW 1. She also produced Ext. P1 letter stated to have been written by the respondent. As PW 1 she had stated before court that one Sri K. Bhaskaran had married her on 06/12/1976 in accordance, with the religious rites of the community to which they belong. That marriage was solemnised at a temple in Thiruvalla. For effecting divorce of that marriage a joint petition was filed before the Sub Court. Alleppey, as O.P. (H.M.A.) 29/1982. That court granted the decree of divorce on 21/01/1983. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised in accordance with the religious rites of the parties in a temple at Thiruvalla on 03/06/1982. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife for a short period. The respondent then went to Gulf countries for taking up employment there. On his return he is conducting a motor workshop and that he gets daily income of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner admitted before court that she is a P.D. Teacher in a Government School and that she gets Rs. 600 per month towards salary.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took the view that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which took place on 03/06/1982 was during the subsistence of the valid marriage between the petitioner and Sri K. Bhaskaran. Therefore it was held that there was no legal marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Consequently the claim for maintenance was negatived. The petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Court. That court concurred with the learned trial Magistrate in holding that there is no legal marriage between the parties. The result was the petitioner's claim for maintenance was disallowed. Hence this Petition.