K. Radhakrishnan vs Rani alias Eliyarani

A. Ramamurthi, J.—The petitioner/husband has filed the revision aggrieved against the order passed in CRP No. 87/97 by the learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, reversing the order dated 31-5-1994 in M.C. No. 8/94 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate IV Salem.

The case in brief is as follows :-

The respondent was the wife of the petitioner. The marriage between them took place on 12-11-1978. The respondent is only his sister''s

daughter. Within six months of the marriage, she developed illicit intimacy with one Jayaraman. Thereafter divorce was effected on 1-2-1997

according to the caste custom prevailing in the community. The petitioner contracted second marriage in 1987 and he is having two children

through the second wife. After the divorce on 1-2-1987 the respondent openly lived with the said Jayaraman till 1994 and thereafter, he also

abandoned her, since the respondent is leading an adulterous life. She is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. The trial Court

rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, but in the revision, the same was allowed and, as such, the order passed by the revision Court

is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the respondent is leading an adulterous life with one

Jayaraman. Even assuming that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent ended in divorce, according to the custom, she is entitled to

claim maintenance as long as she has not remarried. If, however, she is leading an adulterous life, it is always open to the petitioner to move the

Court for cancellation of the order of maintenance.

Heard the learned counsel of both sides.

There is no dispute that the marriage between the respondent and the petitioner took place on 12-11-1978 according to the custom prevailing in

the community. They lived happily for a period of six months and thereafter, according to the respondent the petitioner ill-treated her and he was

also accustomed to drinking. Even, during the subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner is said to have married the second wife viz., Gomathy. The

petitioner is employed in the bank and drawing more than Rs. 4000/- p.m. and besides he also owns some other houses. However, learned

counsel for the petitioner would contend that on 1-2-1987 the marriage between the petitioner and husband came to an end by customary divorce.

After that, the petitioner got married one Gomathy and similarly the respondent also was living with one Jayaraman till 1994.

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent is leading in as adulterous life with one Jayaraman and, as such, she is

not entitled to claim maintenance. However, the petitioner admitted that he is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- by way of maintenance to the

son, when once the marriage between the parties is admitted and even if there is a customary divorce, the petitioner is bound to maintain the

respondent. Now, the stand taken by the petitioner is that she is leading an adulterous life with one Jayaraman and, as such, she is not entitled to

claim any maintenance. The is absolutely no legal evidence to come to the conclusion that she is leading an adulteration life. No doubt, D.W. 3 has

been examined, but his evidence has not improved the case of the petitioner in any way. He had only stated that the said Jayaraman used to take

the respondent in a cycle. By this, one cannot came to the conclusion that they are leading an adulterous life. Because of this day only, the revision

Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 250/- per month has been

ordered by way of maintenance and it cannot be said that the amount is excessive. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the order passed

by the revision Court and there is no reason to interfere in the same.

For the reasons stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. 6413/99 is also dismissed.