- (1.) THE respondent-husband in M.C.No.19 of 2005 is the revision petitioner herein. THE criminal revision is filed against the order dated 25.9.2007 made in M.C.No.19 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham awarding maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the wife/respondent herein.
(2.) THE parties are referred to as per their rank in M.C. According to the petitioner, the petitioner who was the widow and the respondent got married on 22.1.2003 and they set up their family at Gudiyatham where they lived together as husband and wife for 2 years and thereafter the respondent started harassing the petitioner by saying that had he married elsewhere, he would have got Rs.50,000/- as dowry and the petitioner who is elder to him was subjected to torture and harassment and the respondent also sold 5 sovereign gold belonging to the petitioner. Though she lodged a complaint at Gudiyatham Police station, no action was taken on the same and the same was closed without further action which compelled the petitioner to come forward with M.C.No.19 of 2005 seeking maintenance. THE petition was seriously resisted by the respondent by denying either any marriage or living together relationship between the petitioner and himself. THE respondent totally denied any acquaintance with the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent in support of their respective contentions, examined themselves and their witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.Ws.1 to 6 and produced Exs.P1 to P4 and Exs.R1 to R4 documents respectively. The trial court on the basis of the available records, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent married the petitioner and they had been living together as husband and wife in the house of P.W.2 at Old No.24, New No.75, Rasi Arunachalam Street, Gopalapuram for more than 2 years and the petitioner has been continuously residing at the same address and the respondent also admitted the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the marital relationship between the parties in his statement before the police station in the course of enquiry upon the complaint given by the petitioner before Gudiyatham Police Station and the respondent is hence bound to maintain the petitioner and to pay maintenance to her. Hence, this criminal revision by the respondent before this court. The learned counsel for the respondent would seriously contend that the petitioner having failed to prove valid marriage under Muslim law and living together relationship between the parties, is not entitled to claim any status as Wife and has no right to claim maintenance by invoking the provisions of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would justify the correctness of the order by relying upon the statement of the respondent before the police and the outcome of the enquiry held by the Police upon her complaint. I heard the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.;