S S MANICKAM Vs. ARPUTHA BHAVANI RAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition, the respondent in M. C. No. 390 of 1975 on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli. challenges the order passed by the said Magistrate on 27-3-1976 holding that the first petitioner therein (respondent herein) is entitled to maintenance.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this revision petition are as follows : The respondent herein, Smt. Arpuda Bhavani Rajam, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance to herself and for her minor female child viz. , Irudaya Kanimozhi, aged, in 1975, about 3, stating as follows, She is the legally wedded wife of the present petitioner, their marriage having taken place on 14-3-1972 according to the custom and rites of Indian Christians and as per the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act and their marital relationship still subsists. The respondent' gave birth to a female child (second petitioner before the lower Court) through the revision-petitioner. Both the respondent and the petitioner were living in Bombay and thereafter at Madurai. In June, 1975, the revision-petitioner's sister was given in marriage to one Raman, who professes another faith, much against the will of the family members. The respondent took sides with her husband and handed over her jewels for being pledged for raising funds for the conduct of the marriage, on the understanding that the petitioner would redeem them before August, 1975. As the petitioner did not do so, some ill feeling arose between the spouses. Thereupon, the petitioner started ill-treating his wife, the respondent. It is further averred in the petition that on 27-8-1975 the petitioner brought the respondent, who was then pregnant, to her mother's house at Kavalkinar along with the child and left them there, assuring to meet their expenses. The respondent had been very faithful and had all affection towards her husband despite the ill treatment meted out to her. To her surprise, she came to know that her husband had married one Baby Irace Dora on 27-10-1975 before the Marriage Registrar at Palaymkottai, in violation of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner thereafter completely deserted and neglected to maintain the respondent and the child. With the above allegations, the petition was filed by respondent claiming a sum of Rs. 300/- per mensem for her maintenance and Rs. 100/- towards the maintenance of the child, thus totalling a sum of Rupees 400/- per mensem.

(3.) RESISTING the claim of the respondent, the revision-petitioner (who was respondent therein) filed a counter admitting their marriage and the birth of the female child (second petitioner before the lower Court) but contending that when he sent his wife to his native village from Bombay since the respondent pretended to have been overpowered with evil spirits, under the escort of his brother Anantharaj, both of them, instead of going straight to the village, stayed in a Lodge in Tirunelveli and had illicit intercourse and that after her return to Bombay, the respondent constantly pursued her amorous adventures with his brother in his absence and was expressing her disinclination for a sexual life with the petitioner on the pretext of her poor health and that after his transfer from Bombay to Madurai, Anantharaj also followed him to Madurai and lived in a nearby residence, and thereafter the respondent continued her adulterous relationship with Anantharaj and that when the petitioner, on suspicion, confronted her and his brother Anantharaj, both of them admitted their carnal relationship and they handed over the love letters exchanged between them to the petitioner's father. The petitioner denies the motive attributed to him by the respondent viz. , that ill-feeling arose between the spouses on account of the non-redemption of the jewels handed over by her. He has further stated that the respondent left his house as it became impossible for her to pretend to be just and loyal to her husband any more. Therefore, he would state that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance as she has been and is living in adultery and moreover the respondent is living separately from him by mutual consent and hence she is not entitled to any maintenance. However, he would admit his liability to maintain the female child, provided the child is entrusted to his custody.