K KASTHURI Vs. C ALAVUTHEEN RAVUTHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Kasthuri, party in person filed this revision in this Court, challenging the order dated 18.7.1996 in M.C.No.96 of 1994, on the file of Family Court, Madurai, dismissing the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner against the respondent.

(2.) THE chronological factors given below as could be seen from the petitioner and other records would give clear picture about this case: (i) In January 1972, the petitioner Kasthuri married one Sethu son of Thirumalai Ambalam of Melur Taluk, Madurai District. Her husband Sethu was working as a cashier in Madurai Corporation. Out of their wedlock one son and one daughter were born. Son was born in November, 1972. While she got conceived for the second time, the said Sethu drove her out from the matrimonial home, and began to live with one Parvathy. (ii) THEreafter, the petitioner herein came to her parent's house and gave birth to a female baby. She filed a petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C., against the said Sethu, on her behalf claiming maintenance at Rs.300 per month, in M.C. No.122 of 1977, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Madurai. After enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the petition by his order dated 11.5.1978. (iii) On 15.6.1978, the petitioner Kasthuri filed a revision in Crl.R.C. No.67 of 1978, on the file of Sessions Court at Madurai, challenging the abovesaid order of dismissal dated 11.5.1978. On 1.11.1978, on hearing both the parties, the Sessions Court allowed the revision in favour of the petitioner, and directed her husband Sethu to pay a sum of Rs.100 per month as maintenance. This order, however, stands good still, as there was no challenge by her husband Sethu. (iv) In 1983, the petitioner joined as a worker in Pandiyan dying & Printing factory at Vilachery, which belongs to the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar. In the course of time, they became friendly. In 1984, the said Alavutheen Ravuthar, accepted the petitioner as his third wife. THEy lived together for a period of two years as husband and wife. Since the petitioner was living with the respondent, she did not claim any maintenance from her husband Sethu, in pursuance of the maintenance order earlier passed, (v) After two years Alavutheen Ravurthur, also abandoned her and began to develop illicit intimacy with other girls. Even while they were living as husband and wife, she did not convert herself into Muslim, nor was there a registered marriage. When she insisted for the registration of her marriage, the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar did not yield to it. Ultimately she was left in the lurch, by the respondent herein. (vi) THE respondent, when this was questioned by the petitioner, being a rich and influential man, owning 150 acres of wet land and doing money lending business, with the help of Police Officers, gave all sorts of troubles to the petitioner by filing false criminal cases against her. However, the petitioner contested all the cases and got acquittal, (vii) THE petitioner without any job, having found no other alternative filed a petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C, in M.C. No.96 of 1994 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, claiming maintenance of some lumpsum amount from the respondent on 16.9.1994. On service of summons, the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar, appeared before the Family Court and filed a counter statement on 31.10.1994, alleging that he never married the petitioner herein and lived with her, and she was in the habit of filing false cases against may persons, in order to blackmail them and extract money from them. (viii) THE enquiry went on between 4.11.1994 and 15.6.1995. On 15.6.1995, the petitioner filed a petition before the Family Court, stating that since she obtained a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 from the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar, sought permission for withdrawal of the petition, giving an undertaking that she would not pursue the case further, and she would not also claim any right from him in future. So, on the basis of this petition and undertaking, the Family Court, by its order dated 13.7.1995, dismissed the petition, recording her written undertaking dated 15.6.1995, which was made on receipt of a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 in the open court from the respondent. THE learned Judge of the Family Court, also observed that the petition could not be maintained, since the relationship of husband and wife was not established by the petitioner. (ix) Though there was an endorsement for withdrawal of the case and for the receipt of the lumpsum amount, and a written undertaking dated 15.6.1995 to the effect, that she would not pursue the matter further, the petitioner filed a revision, challenging this order before this Court in Crl.R.C. No.566 of 1995. THE main ground urged in the said revision was that she was forced to receive the said amount at the instance of the staff of the Family Court, and threat and coercion perpetrated by the respondent and his men, and that she had subscribed her signature in the said application only under protest, and so she wanted a fresh enquiry, to enable her to adduce evidence before the Family Court, to prove her relationship with the respondent, as his wife. (x) This Court, after hearing both the petitioner and the respondent, and on meticulous perusal of the records, elaborately considered the submissions made by both sides, and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by the Family Court, to give opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case, by its order dated 5.2.1996. (xi) In pursuance of the order of remand made by this Court, the Family Court, Madurai again commenced fresh enquiry. On 2.4.1996, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Before the commencement of enquiry, she filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs as permanent alimony in the same M.C. No.96 of 1994. She was again examined on 10.4.1996. She was cross examined on both the dates, on behalf of the respondent. THE said enquiry was over by 2.7.1996. (xii) After hearing both the parties and perusing the petition, depositions and exhibits filed in this case, the Family Court at Madurai, by its order dated 18.7.1996 concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance or permanent alimony from the respondent, since the petitioner did not establish that she is a legally wedded wife of the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar. Hence the petitioner, party in person has approached this Court, by filing this revision.

(3.) IT is evident from the deposition of P.W.1 that she lived with the respondent, two years as his wife, while the order of the Magistrate, awarding maintenance of Rs.100 in favour of the petitioner, as against her original husband Sethu was in force, due to the continued subsistence of the marriage between herself and the said Sethu. This deposition is fully inconso-nance with the contents of the petitioner filed in M.C. No.96 of 1994, on 16.9.1994.