(1.) THE two petitioners seek to revise the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli holding that the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance from the respondent.
(2.) BEFORE the trial Magistrate Barbara Dolly the petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1. She deposes that the respondent is her husband, In August 1944 she and the respondent were married. The second petitioner was born to her. She is now 20 years and is living with her. After marriage, she and her husband stayed at Kulithalai as husband and wife. They lived for three years and then went to Madras and stayed at Moosa Sait Street, Mambalam. They moved from Mambalam to Bagirathiammal street and then to Boag Road to the house of Mr. N. S. Quaraishi on a rental of Rs. 120 Exhibit P. 4 is the notice from Mr. N. S. Quaraishi dated 23-11-1961. Exhibits P. 5 and P. 6 are two notices sent to her husband. Mr. Qaaraishi filed a petition (marked Exhibit P. 7) for eviction against thorn on 14. 6-1963. Eviction was ordered. She farther narrates about her residence at Tillainagar. Later on, the respondent fixed up a house at No. 43, Third Cross Street and she moved into that house on 28. 8. 1966. Since then the respondent has been neglecting her. She claims maintenance befiting her status at Rs. 400 per mensem for both. Although she claimed in her petition Rs. 600 as maintenance for both the petitioners, in her evidence she limited the maintenance amount to Rs. 400 per month for both the petitioner and her daughter. Neither in her petition nor in her evidence she does separately claim the maintenance amount for her daughter, nor does she indicate how the sum of Rs. 400 has got to be worked out between the mother and the daughter. Mr. Chellaswami, Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner, Barbara Dolly, was a convert and her marriage with the respondent is valid. P. W. 1 states in her evidence that her father was a Christian, Doraiswami Pillai. Her father was an Executive Engineer. She further says that her marriage was done at Kulitalai in the house of the respondent. She did not know if at that time the respondent was already married. She claims now that she knows that he was already married. When she married the respondent she sweats that the marriage was done in the Hindu form. This evidence of P. W. 1 has not been shaken. She further says that she converted herself to Hinduism. She further deposes that she was converted to Hinduism at the time marriage. On this evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that her marriage as a convert to the Hindu religion with the respondent is valid. I am now concerned mainly with giving effect to the section of the Code which gives proper and speedy relief in the circumstances and that this Court of Criminal Revision ought not to be burdened with the decision of a point of personal civil liability which could not possibly concern it. Vide Edward Saiiendra v. Snehalata (1937) 41 Cal WN 898. The ruling in Guruswami Nadai v. Irulappa Konar 67 Mad LJ 389 : AIR 1934 Mad 630 may, not be strictly relevant in view of the peculiar facts of this case. In Bamayya v. Mrs. J. Elisabeth AIR 1937 Mad 172 although that was a case of reconversion to the Hinduism one principle of law is very useful. As Mr. Varadaohariar J. points out in 67 Mad L J 389 : (AIR 1934 Mad 630) this passage does not lay down that everyone of the tests should be fulfilled where conversion to Hinduism is alleged. Mr. Chellaswami strongly relies on the Bench decision of this Court in Appeal No. 177 of 1961 (Mad) in Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswami Nadar, In the light of the reasoning found in this decision of this Court, I find that the petitioner became a Hindu at the time of her marriage with the respondent and her marriage with the respondent is valid.
(3.) MR, Venkatanarasimhan appearing for the respondent was not in a position to submit any valid argument to repel the contention of Mr. Chellaswami. Mr, Ohellaswami argued that even assuming that the first petitioner was a Christian at the time of her marriage, even then her marriage would be valid.