Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2079 (MAD)

S. Sethupathi v. P. Bhuwaneswari & Another

2007-07-09

S.TAMILVANAN

body2007
Judgment :- This Criminal Revision has been directed against the order, dated 28.04.2004, made in M.C.No.17 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows : The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent. On 09.03.1998, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place at Neeliyambal Tample, Karur, as per Hindu customs and rituals. According to the first respondent, through the said wedlock, she got the second respondent born through the revision petitioner. Subsequently, the revision petitioner ill-treated her and caused cruelty. Hence, she is living with the minor second respondent. Further, the revision petitioner is living with another women and on account of the same, she has claimed maintenance. In support of the respondent’s case, the first respondent was examined herself as P.W.1, apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.5. The revision petitioner was examined as R.W.1. 3. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the respondents herein have established their case and that the respondents herein each entitled to RS.500/- towards maintenance from the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision. 4. Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the first respondent has not established that she is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents produced on the side of the respondents are not sufficient to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr.C.Deivasigamani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the respondents have established their claim. Apart from examining herself, the first respondent has produced the marriage invitation between herself and the revision petitioner and also a copy of the complaint, dated 30.11.1999 given before the police as Ex.P.2 and also a xerox copy of the agreement entered into between the revision petitioner and the first respondent, wherein the revision petitioner has admitted that the first respondent is his wife and also the paternity of the minor second respondent. The learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the other documents on the side of the respondents and also the evidence. 6. The learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the other documents on the side of the respondents and also the evidence. 6. As found by the court below, the first respondent has stated that due to love affair, the revision petitioner herein married her on 09.03.1998 and the marriage invitation has been marked as Ex.P.1. According to her, the temple priest performed the marriage, but he was not examined as a witness. It is seen that the revision petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1, in his cross-examination has admitted that based on the complaint given by the first respondent, he was enquired by B-3, police station and that the original of Ex.P.5 was written by him. It is seen that Ex.P.5 is only a xerox copy, but the revision petitioner, as R.W.1 has admitted that the original of the same was written by him, wherein the revision petitioner S.Sethupathi has stated that Bhuvaneswari, the first respondent herein is his wife. Based on the complaint given by her, he was enquired by the police. Even the pregnancy of the first respondent is admitted and as per this document, the revision petitioner has agreed to take back his wife and child after delivery. Ex.A.3 is the certified xerox copy of an agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent. Further, in his cross-examination, he has admitted the document, but subsequently, he denied the same. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on the following decisions : 1. Mohan vs. Santha Bai Ammal, 1989 (2) LW 197 2. R.Anita Marginic vs. R.Annadurai, 1992-1-LW 194 3. J.Ruth vs. C.Mani, 1997 (III) CTC 562 4. Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) CTC 141. .8. As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, for claiming maintenance as wife, the marital status has to be established. Here in this case, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the evidence, the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, has also produced Exs.P.1 to P.5, in order to prove her marital status. It cannot be accepted that the revision petitioner had signed the documents at the instance of the police. Here in this case, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from the evidence, the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, has also produced Exs.P.1 to P.5, in order to prove her marital status. It cannot be accepted that the revision petitioner had signed the documents at the instance of the police. According to the revision petitioner, when he was working as Manager in Sabari Textiles, Masakkalipalyam, Coimbatore, the first respondent was working as labourer there and due to some undesirable conduct of the first respondent, he warned her and stopped her from attending the work. Aggrieved by the same, she lodged complaint before the police against him, but the motive attributed against the first respondent his vague. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents Exs.P.1 to P.5 and also the admission with regard to the signature of the revision petitioner in the original of the exhibits marked would clearly establish the factum that there was subsisting marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. In order to disprove the respondents case, that he is the father of the second respondent, the revision petitioner has not taken any steps for DNA test. .9. In a criminal revision, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the finding of the trial court. Here in this case, I could find no manifest error of law or perverse finding leading to miscarriage of justice, so as to interfere with the finding of the court below, since the finding is based on evidence on record. Further, as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court has directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/-to each per month to each of the respondents. The maintenance awarded by the trial court is also a reasonable minimum amount. Considering the same, I hold that the revision petition fails. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. The arrears of maintenance amount, if any payable shall be paid to the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2005 is also dismissed.