J RUTH Vs. C MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in M.C.No. 3o of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee and the 1st Respondent before the Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl.R.C.No. 1 of 1993, has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE revision petitioner, by name Mrs. J. Ruth claiming to be the wife of the respondent, and her sons alleged to have been born to her through the respondent C. Mani, have filed M.C.No.3 of 1990 before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee, claiming maintenance. Learned Magistrate, who recorded the evidence of parties, came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.300 per month with effect from 10.4.1990 and the petitioners by name Gopi and Jeyakumar as miner sons of the respondents are entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 each per month from the above date and dismissed the claim of the 1st son Murali, who had already attained majority. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband Mani, who was the respondent, had preferred a Revision Petition No.l of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu who set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the petition filed by the wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife Mrs. J. Ruth has preferred this present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that Mrs. Ruth and Mani lived together, co-habited for more than 30 years and P.W.3 had deposed to that effect and therefore there is a presumption of valid marriage between them. Two main reasons go against these propositions. Firstly, if at all there was a marriage between first petitioner and the respondent Mani, it was a marriage between a Christian lady and a Hindu man, the validity of the marriage is in dispute. Secondly, it is clear from the evidence available on record that they married when the first marriage of Mani with Alamelu was subsisting. There is no acceptable evidence regarding the marriage itself. All these reasons will stand against the marriage between Mr. Ruth and Mani. There is evidence to show that they lived together as husband and wife. However, from the School Certificate of P.W.2 Gopi it is clear that Mani embraced Christianity and Mrs. Ruth continued to be a Christian even after her marriage with Mani. Though the society treated them as husband and wife, she did not convert herself to Hinduism and follow the way of life which Hindus are accustomed to this part of the country. As there is no clear evidence in this respect, the decision of this Court reported in Vaidyaliagam v. Valliammal, 1995 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 631 where the Christian lady married a Hindu man in a temple and led her life as a Hindu by going to temples, etc. will not be applicable to the instant case. It is by the long co-habitation with a man and the recognition by the society would give the status of a wife to a lady. However, in this case also such a status can be given to the first petitioner Mrs. Ruth if her marriage with Mani was valid. As already stated when many reasons stand against the validity of the marriage between Ruth and by showing the long co-habitation with Mani and the recognition of the society, she cannot call herself as a legally married wife of Mani. Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires the status of a wife to a lady to claim maintenance. As the status of Mrs. Ruth as the legally wedded wife of Mani, has not been proved, she cannot claim maintenance from him. As such the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the maintenance of the 1st petitioner Mrs. Ruth has to be confirmed.