A VAIDYALINGAM Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. II, Coimbatore , awarding the maintenance to the respondent herein under Sec. 125, Criminal procedure Code, in M. C. No. 14 of 1991. dated 4. 8. 1993.

(2.) THE respondent herein, who claims to be the wife of the revision petitioner, claimed maintenance from the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner, who married her in the year 1958 in a badagar temple in Ooty and gave birth to 3 sons through the revision petitioner, had abandoned and as he is living with a concubine now, she required Rs. 1,000 per month for her maintenance.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner mr. N. P. K. Menon would contend that when the respondent herein was admittedly a christian before her marriage, she could have become a Hindu only by conversion by following some ceremonies or formalities for which there is no proof and further the respondent has not spoken in the evidence that she had renounced her parents religion namely Christianity, and that she had developed faith and attachment only to the Hinduism, and therefore, even if she was named as valliammal by the revision petitioner herein, it will not amount to conversion to Hinduism for the purpose of valid marriage between them and hence even if there was any marriage between them, the same will not be valid. THE learned counsel Mr. N. P. K. Menon has cited a decision of this Court in Ratansi D. Morarji v. THE Administrator General, Madras, 55 M. L. J. 478 wherein venkatasubbarao, J, has observed that an Austrian origin lady domiciled in great Britain lived in India for several years and as she became formally converted to the Hindu faith and the ceremony of conversion was performed by a society known as the Hindu Missionary Society, which had for its object, conversion of the people of other faiths, the conversion was acceptable to the hindu fold. But in this case as such conversion by any ceremony or through any society was not effected it is argued that there is no proof for the conversion of the respondent herein to Hinduism.