RAHIMAN ALIAS PYARI Vs. KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON conclusion of the proceedings in M.C.No.13 of 1996, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, the respondent/wife and minor son of the petitioner were awarded maintenance of Rs.300/- and Rs.200/- respectively. In a revision preferred in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2001 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, the order of the trial Court has been confirmed. Aggrieved against that the present original petition, invoking the inherent powers of this Honourable Court has been filed.

(2.) THE contention of the first respondent is that the petitioner married the first respondent on 23.01.1994 in a temple in the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. THEy were living as husband and wife. THEreafter, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as dowry and started ill-treating. In the meantime on 01.09.1995 the first respondent has given birth to the second respondent. THE petitioner refused to visit the first respondent and on enquiry the first respondent found that the petitioner has performed a second marriage on 22.08.1994. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as a driver in State Transport Corporation and earning a sufficient salary. As the first respondent could not maintain the family, filed a maintenance petition before the learned Magistrate. Exparte order awarding maintenance has been passed. But in the revision filed by the petitioner it was set aside and the proceedings was taken up again. Five years lapsed in the meantime. On a full-fledged trial, the learned Magistrate has awarded the maintenance above mentioned.

(3.) AT the time when this petition was taken up for hearing, the respondent was not represented through counsel. Therefore, assistance of a counsel from the Legal Services Authority has been sought for and accordingly, Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan has been nominated.