Decided on October 18,1963


Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)This Criminal Revision Petition by the wife is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Quilon under S.488(5) Criminal Procedure Code cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour on the ground that she was living in adultery.
(2.)The order awarding maintenance to the wife and child was passed on 9-4-1962. The husband did not challenge that order and it has become final. As he did not pay any amount in pursuance of the order, the wife took steps to realise the arrears of maintenance and when he was served with notice, he came out with the petition by way of reply to the notice. It was alleged in the petition that he, a minor at the time, was forced to marry the revision petitioner who was leading a loose life and had conceived through some one else and that she is continuing to lead an open immoral life and was living as the wife of one Aradan. The allegations were refuted by the wife.
(3.)The petitioner and five witnesses were examined to prove that the wife was living in adultery with Aradan. Pw. 1 Raghavan, a shopkeeper living half a mile away from the petitioner's house said that he had seen Aradan meeting her at her work spot and talking to her and that on one occasion they had purchased a bun from his shop and on another he saw them going to the cinema theatre. He has been seeing them for the past seven or eight years. But he is definite that from their behaviour he did not get the impression that they were living as man and wife. Though Aradan is admittedly living within a few yards of the woman's house this witness was not in a position to say where Aradan lives or whether he has a wife and children. Pw. 2 says that the woman had been working in his coir fibre business for six months in the year 1961 and that Aradan used to take her back after work. He has also seen them going together from the market. But he is not sure whether they were living as husband and wife. He admits that he is not acquainted with Aradan and knows nothing about him. Pw. 3 Kunju Pillai Kurup says that for the past five or six years he has seen Aradan in the house of the petitioner and he had seen them together in the market. He added that from their movements he felt that they were man and wife. Though he poses to be the next door neighbour of the woman he is not even sure who are living in the house. Naturally his evidence that Aradan was seen by him in that house day and night is false. He was not in a position to deny the definite suggestion that his son is employed in the petitioner's bakery. Pw. 4 says that the woman and Aradan used to go to his shop and take tea. He had also seen them going to the cinema and he says that they were behaving like man and wife. Though he poses to be a neighbour he admits that he has never gone to the house of either the petitioner or the respondent. Pw. 5 lives three furlongs away from the wife's house. According to him the revision petitioner and Aradan were seen together in the hospital near his house and had felt that they were living as man and wife. He says Aradan 'lives in the petitioner's house. He does not know whether Aradan has a wife and children. He is not sure whether Aradan is being employed by the revision petitioner's father for catching fish. Admittedly he saw them together in the hospital seven or eight years ago and not at any time after 9-4-1962.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.