J RUTH Vs. C MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent in M.C.No. 3/90 on the file the Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Poonamallee and the 1st Respondent befor the Sessios Judge Chengalpattu in Crl. R.C. No. 1/93, has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) The revision petitioner, byname 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. 390 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 set maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month with effect from 10-4-1990 and the petitioners by name Gopi and Jayakumar as/minor 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, has preferred a Revision Petition No. 1 /93 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.) It was alleged on the side of the petitioners that the respondent Mani had married the first petitioner J. Ruth in the year 1960 and thereafter they lived together as husband, and wife, and during that period the three sons by name Murali, Gopi and Jayakumar were born to them. Thereafter the couple lived in the Housing Board Buildings, Venkatapuram, for ten years happily and for 1-1/2 years prior to the filing of the petition, the respondent had started quarreling with the petitioners and the 1st petitioner had given complaint against the respondent to the authorities and also sent a lawyer's Notice. The respondent Mani is working in the Postal Department and earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The respondent, as husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 liable to pay maintenance. The respondent repelled each one 6f the petitioners and had stated that he had not married the 1st petitioner that petitioners 2 to 4 are not born to him and the entire claim is false and liable to be dismissed. Though the learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the wife and two minor sons, dismissing the claim of the major son, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the entire petition denying maintenance to the petitioners.