BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. THULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has got a chequered history.

(2.) THE petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. The wife filed M.C. No. 32 of 1989, before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, claiming maintenance from her husband at Rs. 500/ - per month. This was contested by the husband, the petitioner herein, stating that no marriage had taken place between the parties. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the materials adduced by both the parties, accepted the case of the wife, and awarded the maintenance of Rs. 500/ -per month. This order was passed on 10.1.1992. Aggrieved over this order, the husband /petitioner filed the Revision in Crl. R.C. No. 161 of 1992, which was admitted by this Court on 1.7.1992, and notice ordered to the wife. However, no stay was granted. 2 -A. A. Though the issue relating to the marriage and the entitlement of the wife to claim maintenance, is pending before this Court, the petitioner/husband filed a suit in O.S. No. 17 of 1993, before the District Munsif, Nannilam against his wife, for the relief of declaration, declaring that the respondent herein is not his wife as no marriage has taken place in between them at any point of time.

(3.) THE records would reveal, that on 31.5.1993, an ex -parte decree was passed by the District Munsif, Nannilam, as neither the respondent/wife nor her Counsel was present before the said Court, to contest the suit filed by the petitioner herein. It is important to note, that there is no detail in the ex -parte order, about the service of summons on the wife. But the said ex -parte order has been passed, inspite of the reference in the suit, about the pendency of the revision before this Court in Crl. R,C No. 161 of 1992, challenging the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, to the effect that marriage was performed, and the wife is entitled to maintenance.