GEETHA Vs. R PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the petitioner in M.C.11 of 2000. THE criminal revision is filed against the order dated 29.07.2003 made in Crl.M.C.No.11 of 2000 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore rejecting her petition seeking maintenance.

(2.) THE facts that the petitioner had earlier married one Mohanlal and she had been separated from him. While so, she was employed as noon meal organiser in the school wherein the respondent was employed as Head Master. THE petitioner has originally come forward with the petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son by name Arvind Santhosh Kumar and during pendency of the petition, the minor Arvind Santhosh Kumar attained majority and the claim was given up in so far as Arvind Santhosh Kumar is concerned.

(3.) THE petitioner has before the trial court examined herself as PW1 and produced Exs.P1 to P5 documents, and the respondent has in support of his contention examined himself as RW1. Ex.P1 is the document styled as agreement for divorce entered into between the legally married husband Mohanlal, Exs.P2 and P3 are the School and Community certificate of Arvind Santhosh Kumar, Ex.P4 is the Voter list and Ex.P5 is the pronote executed by 3rd parties in favour of one Kumaran/financier. THE trial court on the basis of the available records, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the marriage and joint living with the respondent as husband and wife and is hence dis-entitled to get any relief from the respondent. Hence this criminal revision by the petitioner before this court.