- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;