M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) MAINTENANCE application has been filed by the opposite party -wife seeking maintenance for herself After inquiry, the Trial Court ordered for payment of maintenance of Rs. 800 per month from the date of order, which is under challenge.
(2.) I have heard Mr. S.P. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.N. Verm, learned Counsel appearing for the State. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that notice has been sent to her and despite service of notice, she has not cared to appear before the Court to defend the case. The main defence taken by the husband before the Trial Court is that the marriage between the wife and husband has not been proved and as a matter of fact, the petitioner's wife already died and, as such, the evidence adduced on behalf of the alleged wife, which is materially contradictory, cannot be relied upon to conclude that the opposite party -alleged wife is entitled to maintenance.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State opposed the admission of this application on the ground that the evidences adduced have been dealt with by the Trial Court in a proper perspective and the Trial Court correctly believed the evidence adduced by the wife and also gave finding regarding marriage performance to the effect that she is the wife and is entitled to maintenance. When the Court asked the petitioner whether any payment has been made in Court subsequent to the impugned order dated 13.9.2004, Counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that since he disputed the marriage, he has not made any payment. It is noticed that notice was issued on 9.9.2005 and it is strenuously stated by the Counsel that notice has been served on the alleged wife.;