MUNIANDI Vs. JOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of maintenance by the II Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, dated 25 -3 -1981 in M.C.N. 2741 of 1979. The wife prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 400 stating that the petitioner who married her has ill -treated her, got married with another woman and from that time abandoned her. The case of the revision petitioner before the Magistrate was that the respondent -wife was married to another man, that there was no marriage between the parties and that the respondent -wife was only a concubine of the petitioner. After perusing the evidence adduced by the parties, the court below came to the conclusion that the fact of anterior marriage of the respondent -wife as alleged by the revision petitioner was not established and that on the contrary the marriage between the parties was clearly proved and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,550 p.m. Against the order of maintenance the revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE revision petitioner was called absent. The records and that grounds of revision are perused. Of the two main grounds raised by the revision petitioner the first one is that the court below ought to have held that the respondent -wife was already married. But the revision petitioner does not say why the Court below should have taken such a conclusion. The Court below has clearly stated that the petitioner who has alleged an anterior marriage of the respondent -wife has not given any evidence except his own interested testimony. Since that testimony was not corroborated by any independent evidence, the trial court was right in rejecting the plea of the revision petitioner.

(3.) THE second ground raised is that the Magistrate ought have held that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not established beyond reasonable doubt. In a case for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary that the marriage is established beyond reasonable doubt, it is enough for the Magistrate that a prima facie case is made out, in order to afford the immediate and speedy relief of the suffering party, under section 125, Cr.P.C. while leaving open to the aggrieved party the right to agitate his plea before the civil court, if he is so advised. In the present case, the Magistrate has found from the letters written by the petitioner, and by the relatives of the petitioner, the electoral roll and the nomination form in the insurance policy that the respondent had that the status of wife of the revision petitioner. This is enough to hold that the parties were married for granting maintenance. Therefore there is no merit in this ground of revision.