LAWS(MAD)-1996-12-59

CHINNAZHAGI S Vs. CHELLAPPAN

Decided On December 05, 1996
Chinnazhagi S Appellant
V/S
CHELLAPPAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the wife and the minor son of the respondent respectively.

(2.) SINCE the respondent, the husband, neglected the petitioners to maintain, they filed a petition in M.C. No. 17 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Harur claiming maintenance from her husband. On behalf of the petitioners, five witnesses were examined including the first petitioner, the wife. On behalf of the respondent, the husband, ten witnesses were examined including the respondent, the husband. Exs.P.l to P.6were marked on the wife's side. Exs.R.l to R.4 were marked on the husband's side.

(3.) THE facts led to the filing of the said petition are this : About 11 years ago, the first petitioner and the respondent got married at Murugan Temple, Thottampatti, Harur Taluk. Both belong to Harijan Community. At the time of the marriage, the respondent was working as a packer in the Amutham Co -operative Society. Out of the wedlock, the second petitioner, minor Vijayakanth was born. They were living together for about ten years at various places. The respondent was promoted as Bill -Clerk. Since he attained higher status, he demanded dowry of 10 sovereigns and cash ofRs.l5.000/ -fromthe parents of the first petitioner. The husband also told her that his relations are ready to give some other girl as second wife in marriage with him with die Seethana articles of 10 sovereigns and cash. He also warned the wife that if no such amount is given, she would have to go out of the house with the child. Unable to comply with the demand made by the respondent, the husband, the first petitioner was treated cruelly and ultimately both the mother and the child were driven out of the house. Then, the wife joined with her parents. Regarding his conduct, die wife has also given a petition to die Superintendent of Police of Dharmapuri District. In the enquiry conducted by the police, the husband, the respondent, informed the police mat he would not take back the wife and the child. These circumstances necessitated the wife to file the petition for maintenance of Rs. 250/ -for her and Rs. 150/ -per month for the minor son. This claim was contested by the respondent stating diat there was no marriage at all with the first petitioner and in order to harass the respondent and extract money from him, the above petition was filed with the false allegations.