MALLIKA Vs. P KULANDAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal revisioncase has been filed against the order dated 10-1-1995 made in C.R.P. No. 122 of 1993 by the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, thereby setting aside the order dated 16-7-1993 made in M.C. No. 10 of 1991 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sankari, wherein in an application filed under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sankari, has directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/- to the first petitioner and Rs. 50/- to the second petitioner, till she attained majority.

(2.) The petitioners' contentions in a nutshell, are that the first petitioner got married to the respondent 41/2 years back according to the caste, customs and rituals; that even though the respondent had already been married to one Muthulakshmi and had a female child, he represented that his first wife had passed away, in a clandestine manner, and got married with the first petitioner; that from out of such wedlock, the first petitioner begot a female child/the second petitioner herein; that five months back, the respondent, demanding an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as dowry from the first petitioner, had sent her out of home along with her child, resulting in her taking asylum with her parents; that the respondent is employed in Food Corporation of India and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/-; that the respondent is duty-bound to maintain the petitioners and since he is having the capacity to pay the maintenance and since the petitioners are without any means of livelihood, they have demanded monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400/- respectively.

(3.) On the contrary, the respondent would put up his defence denying his marriage with the first petitioner and further denying that he made false representation that his first wife was dead. He would further contend that he got married with one Muthulakshmi in the year 1975 and she became insane in 1980 and that the first petitioner became his servant in the year 1986. He would deny the allegation that he demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the parents of the first petitioner. He would admit that the first petitioner is without any means of livelihood; that on all deductions made, he is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 714/- only, with which he has to support his aged parents, widowed sister and her children besides taking care of the insane wife; that the first petitioner had stolen away the jewels weighing 25 sovereigns belonging to his wife Muthulakshmi and a cash of Rs. 30,000/-; that mediation by panchayatdars failed either to bring back the jewels or the money taken away by the first petitioner or even to make her come back to him to render her service as earlier and would ultimately pray to dismiss the petition.