DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM Vs. EASWARAN POTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly first revision petitioner is the mother and the respondent, father of the second revision petitioner (daughter). In M. C. No. 41/80 an order was passed under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') treating the revision petitioners as the lawfully wedded wife and the daughter of the respondent and directing the latter to pay maintenance to them at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month and Rs. 70/- per month respectively. Subsequently the revision petitioners filed M. C. No. 8 of 1985 under S.127(1) of the Code seeking enhancement of the rate of maintenance on the ground of change of circumstances. Petition was opposed by the respondent, who filed Crl. M. P. No. 4007/85 under S.127(2) of the Code, alleging that a competent civil court in O.S. No. 203/79 (Sub Court, Trivandrum) has held that the first revision petitioner is not the lawfully wedded wife and the second revision petitioner is not the legitimate child of the respondent and, therefore, the earlier order under S.125 has to be cancelled. Learned Magistrate partly upheld the contention of the respondent, enhanced the maintenance payable to the daughter to Rs. 150/- per month and cancelled the earlier maintenance order passed in favour of the first revision petitioner. This order is now challenged.

(2.) M. C. No. 41/80 was filed by the revision petitioners (mother and daughter) specifically alleging their status as the lawfully wedded wife and legitimate daughter of the respondent. Ext. D2, certified copy of the written statement filed in that case by the present respondent admitted their status. Petitioners in M. C. No. 41/80 alleged neglect and the wife further alleged that subsequently the husband entered into a marriage arrangement with one Saraswathi Antharjanam. Husband further made an offer to maintain her if she lived with him. Ext. P1 order passed in M. C. 4l/80 shows that the court rejected the offer as not bona fide particularly in the light of the earlier notice issued by him and the registered marriage agreement entered into by him with Saraswathi Antharjanam. Copy of that notice is produced and marked as Ext. D3 in this case.

(3.) Revision petitioners herein and son of the first revision petitioner filed a suit, O. S. No. 201 of 1979, seeking partition of the family properties into seven shares and delivery of one such share to the son alleging that the respondent executed a gift deed in favour of the son in regard to his 1/7th share. Respondent herein was the third defendant in that suit. Copy of the judgment in that suit produced and marked as Ext. PI in Crl. M. P. No. 4007/85 shows that the third defendant filed written statement admitting all the averments in the plaint, but the other members of the family, namely, defendants 4 to 8 and a stranger purchaser, namely, 13th defendant, contended, inter alia, that before the respondent married the first revision petitioner he had married another lady by name Padmavathy Antharjanam, that marriage was subsisting and, therefore, the marriage with the first revision petitioner was not lawful. On that ground they challenged the legal status of the son and the first revision petitioner The civil court accepted the contention and dismissed the suit. According to the respondent, in confluence of this decision of the competent civil court the earlier order under S.125 of the Code has to be cancelled. This contention found favour with the learned Magistrate.