MANICKAM Vs. POONGAVANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Poongavanammal applied to the Presidency Magistrate's Court, Egmore, for maintenance from Manickam under Section 488 of the Criminal P. C.. She alleged that she was an Adi Dravida and that she was married to the counter-petitioner--Manickam--who is a Naidu. There was a child of the marriage, and on the allegation that she was Manickam's legally married wife, she claimed maintenance for herself and for her child on the ground that the counter-petitioner Manickam had neglected her and refused to maintain her and the child.

(2.) The counter-petitioner--Manickam--admitted the parentage of the child and stated that he was prepared to give maintenance to it; but he refused to give any maintenance to the complainant--Poongavanammal--on the ground that she was not his wedded wife but only his concubine. The learned Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate recorded evidence of the six witnesses examined on the side of the complainant and of the two examined on the side of the counter-petitioner. He came to the conclusion that a marriage according to Hindu observances took place between the complainant and the counter-petitioner. He also held that the marriage was valid, though the complainant was an Adi Dravida and the counter-petitioner a Naidu.

(3.) He therefore passed orders directing the counter-petitioner to pay Rs. 4 a month as maintenance to the complainant and Rs. 3 a month for the child.