IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19.01.2011
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
Crl.R.C.No.297 of 2004
Geetha .. Petitioner
Vs.
R.Perumal. .. Respondent
Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order made on 29.07.2003 in M.C.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.Kathiravan.
For Respondent : No representation.
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the petitioner in M.C.11 of 2000. The criminal revision is filed against the order dated 29.07.2003 made in Crl.M.C.No.11 of 2000 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore rejecting her petition seeking maintenance.
2. The facts that the petitioner had earlier married one Mohanlal and she had been separated from him. While so, she was employed as noon meal organiser in the school wherein the respondent was employed as Head Master. The petitioner has originally come forward with the petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son by name Arvind Santhosh Kumar and during pendency of the petition, the minor Arvind Santhosh Kumar attained majority and the claim was given up in so far as Arvind Santhosh Kumar is concerned.
3. The petitioner has in her maintenance petition stated that the respondent earlier married one Chellammal and the petitioner and the respondent were married on 17.09.1989, while the respective first marriage of the petitioner and the respondent are in force but after while the petitioner was separated from her first husband on the strength of Viduthalai Pathiram. It is further stated by the petitioner, that the respondent after his marriage with the petitioner, set up a separate residence for her, while he was living with his first wife and children and in the course of such living with the respondent, she gave birth to two daughters and one son by name Radhika, Soniya and Arvind Santhosh Kumar and the respondent in due course of time, started ill treating the petitioner by beating her at the instigation of his first wife and failed to provide any money for the day today expenses of the petitioner and her children and the petitioner finds it difficult to maintain herself and her children in the rented house with her meager salary of Rs.1,000/- per month and the respondent has been as Head Master drawing a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary and he being the husband of the petitioner and father of all the three minor children, legally and morally bound to maintain them. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to her.
4. The respondent has in the counter filed by him totally denied the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. According to him, she was noon meal organiser in the corporation school in which he was employed as Head Master and the petitioner was on the date of the petition working in different school and the minor children were born to her through her first husband and there was no marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent had never lived with the petitioner as husband and hence, he is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has before the trial court examined herself as PW1 and produced Exs.P1 to P5 documents, and the respondent has in support of his contention examined himself as RW1. Ex.P1 is the document styled as agreement for divorce entered into between the legally married husband Mohanlal, Exs.P2 and P3 are the School and Community certificate of Arvind Santhosh Kumar, Ex.P4 is the Voter list and Ex.P5 is the pronote executed by 3rd parties in favour of one Kumaran/financier. The trial court on the basis of the available records, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the marriage and joint living with the respondent as husband and wife and is hence dis-entitled to get any relief from the respondent. Hence this criminal revision by the petitioner before this court.
6. Though, the petitioner has come forward with the maintenance case with allegations that there is marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and three children were born through the respondent, the theory that she got three children through the respondent even according to her, found to be untrue. The petitioner has, in the course of her cross examination admitted that all the three children are born to her first husband by name Mohanlal. Whereas, the father name is given in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 School and Community certificate of minor Arvind Santhosh Kumar as R.Perumal who is the respondent herein. Admittedly, on the date of the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, both of them have already been separately already married and their first marriage has been subsisting and the petitioner has been living separately from her husband which is not on, the strength of any valid divorce obtained from any court of law. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show one such marriage taken place between the petitioner and the respondent. There is also no satisfactory evidence to prove the plea of the petitioner that herself and the respondent had been living together as husband and wife. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the discussion held by the trial court in this regard, as if the trial court has accepted the theory of marriage and the theory of living together as husband and wife, the same is in my opinion not factually acceptable.
7. On the other hand, there is denial of any relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. According to the respondent as he is the Head Master of the school in which the petitioner was employed as noon meal organiser, the respondent is aware of the family particulars of the petitioner and the same cannot be high lighted by the petitioner in support of her theory that there was some sort of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, on the failure of the petitioner to prove any sort of relationship much less matrimonial relationship with the respondent, the respondent cannot be held liable to pay any maintenance to the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to prove either valid marriage or living together relationship as husband and wife, the observation made in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in II (2009) DMC 44 in Moideen V. Ramlath which is based on Muslim personal law is not applicable to the facts of the present case and no liability can be fastened on the respondent to pay any maintenance to the petitioner.
8. In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19.01.2011
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
Crl.R.C.No.297 of 2004
Geetha .. Petitioner
Vs.
R.Perumal. .. Respondent
Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order made on 29.07.2003 in M.C.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.Kathiravan.
For Respondent : No representation.
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the petitioner in M.C.11 of 2000. The criminal revision is filed against the order dated 29.07.2003 made in Crl.M.C.No.11 of 2000 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore rejecting her petition seeking maintenance.
2. The facts that the petitioner had earlier married one Mohanlal and she had been separated from him. While so, she was employed as noon meal organiser in the school wherein the respondent was employed as Head Master. The petitioner has originally come forward with the petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son by name Arvind Santhosh Kumar and during pendency of the petition, the minor Arvind Santhosh Kumar attained majority and the claim was given up in so far as Arvind Santhosh Kumar is concerned.
3. The petitioner has in her maintenance petition stated that the respondent earlier married one Chellammal and the petitioner and the respondent were married on 17.09.1989, while the respective first marriage of the petitioner and the respondent are in force but after while the petitioner was separated from her first husband on the strength of Viduthalai Pathiram. It is further stated by the petitioner, that the respondent after his marriage with the petitioner, set up a separate residence for her, while he was living with his first wife and children and in the course of such living with the respondent, she gave birth to two daughters and one son by name Radhika, Soniya and Arvind Santhosh Kumar and the respondent in due course of time, started ill treating the petitioner by beating her at the instigation of his first wife and failed to provide any money for the day today expenses of the petitioner and her children and the petitioner finds it difficult to maintain herself and her children in the rented house with her meager salary of Rs.1,000/- per month and the respondent has been as Head Master drawing a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary and he being the husband of the petitioner and father of all the three minor children, legally and morally bound to maintain them. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to her.
4. The respondent has in the counter filed by him totally denied the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. According to him, she was noon meal organiser in the corporation school in which he was employed as Head Master and the petitioner was on the date of the petition working in different school and the minor children were born to her through her first husband and there was no marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent had never lived with the petitioner as husband and hence, he is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has before the trial court examined herself as PW1 and produced Exs.P1 to P5 documents, and the respondent has in support of his contention examined himself as RW1. Ex.P1 is the document styled as agreement for divorce entered into between the legally married husband Mohanlal, Exs.P2 and P3 are the School and Community certificate of Arvind Santhosh Kumar, Ex.P4 is the Voter list and Ex.P5 is the pronote executed by 3rd parties in favour of one Kumaran/financier. The trial court on the basis of the available records, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the marriage and joint living with the respondent as husband and wife and is hence dis-entitled to get any relief from the respondent. Hence this criminal revision by the petitioner before this court.
6. Though, the petitioner has come forward with the maintenance case with allegations that there is marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and three children were born through the respondent, the theory that she got three children through the respondent even according to her, found to be untrue. The petitioner has, in the course of her cross examination admitted that all the three children are born to her first husband by name Mohanlal. Whereas, the father name is given in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 School and Community certificate of minor Arvind Santhosh Kumar as R.Perumal who is the respondent herein. Admittedly, on the date of the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, both of them have already been separately already married and their first marriage has been subsisting and the petitioner has been living separately from her husband which is not on, the strength of any valid divorce obtained from any court of law. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show one such marriage taken place between the petitioner and the respondent. There is also no satisfactory evidence to prove the plea of the petitioner that herself and the respondent had been living together as husband and wife. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the discussion held by the trial court in this regard, as if the trial court has accepted the theory of marriage and the theory of living together as husband and wife, the same is in my opinion not factually acceptable.
7. On the other hand, there is denial of any relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. According to the respondent as he is the Head Master of the school in which the petitioner was employed as noon meal organiser, the respondent is aware of the family particulars of the petitioner and the same cannot be high lighted by the petitioner in support of her theory that there was some sort of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, on the failure of the petitioner to prove any sort of relationship much less matrimonial relationship with the respondent, the respondent cannot be held liable to pay any maintenance to the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to prove either valid marriage or living together relationship as husband and wife, the observation made in the judgment of the Kerala High Court in II (2009) DMC 44 in Moideen V. Ramlath which is based on Muslim personal law is not applicable to the facts of the present case and no liability can be fastened on the respondent to pay any maintenance to the petitioner.
8. In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed.
