DORAISAMI Vs. VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision case filed by Doraisami, the petitioner against the decision rendered by the lower court in M.C.No.60 of 1981 on 22.1.1983 dismissing the said petition finding that the provision of section 127(3)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with by the petitioner.

(2.) THE revision petitioner herein filed a petition before the lower court for setting aside the order pronounced by the low court in M.C.No.97 of 1980 directing the revision petitioner herein to pay maintenance to the respondent Vasantha. THE respondent herein filed M.C.NO.97 of 1980 before the lower court and obtained in her favour an order in the said petition on 25.7.81. THE revision petitioner herein had been directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.75 to the respondent herein. During the pendency of the petition M.C.No.60 of 1981, the order of which is now sought to be revised, O.P.41 of 1881 had been filed by the revision petitioner herein before the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur seeking a decree for divorce alleging that the respondent herein was pregnant through somebody else than the revision petitioner herein. THE said O.P.41 of 1981 was pending disposal before the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur during the enquiry of this petition, namely, M.C.60 of 1981 before the lower court. According to the revision petitioner herein, the respondent herein had developed illicit intimacy with one Thangaraj of Mookanur Village. A Panchayat was held and as per the decision of the said Panchayat on 18.11.1981, the respondent herein received a sum of Rs.5,000 from the a revision petitioner herein and there was divorce of the marriage between them. THE revision petitioner and the respondent belong to Vanniakula Shaktriya caste. As per their custom, divorce could be effected in that manner and as such, the divorce was a legal and valid one. According to the revision petitioner since the respondent had received a sum of Rs.5,000 for her life, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the respondent herein. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner sought relief of setting aside the order made by the lower court in M.C.97 of 1980 directing the revision petitioner herein to pay maintenance to the respondent.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner herein that the lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record both oral and documentary and as such, the decision arrived at by the lower court is not correct and in accordance with law.