KANDASAMY GOUNDER Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders passed by the trial court, the respondent therein has come forward with the instant R.C. The R.C. has arisen in this O.P. For convenient sake, I feel the revision petitioner herein can be hereinafter referred to as "respondent" and the petitioner before the trial court who is the respondent herein can be referred as respondent in this R.C.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner before the trial Court, she married the respondent Kandasamy about 18 years back and out of the wed-lock, a son by name Nattuthurai was also born. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and her son, that the petitioner and her son were unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, she has instituted proceedings under Sec.125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent therein.

(3.) FROM the provisions, it is clear that the existence and continuation of a conjugal relationship is the foundation of an order of maintenance along with the further key factor, that the wife is unable to maintain herself. It should also be pointed out that the burden of proof to establish a case under Sec.125, Cr.P.C. is on the party who claims maintenance, the party is not required to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt. The aggrieved party can establish her case on a preponderance of probability.