K. MOHAN Vs. BAKIALAKSHMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above said revision filed by the petitioner against the order of maintenance granted by the learned Family Court, Udhagamandalam in M.C.No.18 of 2014 by order dated 29.11.2016. The said trial Court granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents from the date of filing of the petition.

(2.) The case of the respondent is that the 1st respondent is the mother of the respondents 2 and 3. The 1st respondent submits that she married the revision petitioner on 27.10.1999 at Tirupathi. Later they lived together at Thittukal, Udhagamandalam, the 2nd respondent Nithya was born on 20.01.2001 and the 3rd respondent Goutham was born on 08.12.2006. According to the 1st respondent the revision petitioner married her by suppressing his earlier marriage with one Padma. The revision petitioner used to see his first wife and his daughter at Bangalore. There was a quarrel arose between the 1st respondent and the revision petitioner with respect of his relationship with the first wife. The 1st respondent submits that in the year June 2013, the revision petitioner refused to provide necessary family needs to the respondents. Later the 1st respondent approached the parents of the revision petitioner for her family need on 18.07.2013. But the parents of the revision petitioner driven her from the house and threatened. When she approached revision petitioner in the month of June 2013, the same type of treatment meted out to her. Thereafter, the petitioner permanently separated from her. The 1st respondent filed application for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 stating that she has no income of her own and living with the aged parents. According to her the revision petitioner owns lands, houses and cattles and earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.

(3.) The case of the revision petitioner was that he disputed the marriage with the 1st respondent and according to him he was not the father of the respondents 2 and 3. According to him at no point of time the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent lived as husband and wife and the said maintenance petition filed by the 1st respondent is just to grab the property of the revision petitioner. Moreover the revision petitioner married one Padma, daughter of Mahalingam on 17.04.1981 and a female child was born to them. The revision petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent was working as a coolie in his agricultural land at Tittukal, Udhagamandalam and she made a false propaganda that there was a marriage between them and the said two child was born to them. The revision petitioner prayed to dismiss the maintenance petition filed by the respondent.