IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1056 of 2002() -------------------------------------- CRRP.4/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-II), PALAKKAD MC.38/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT/CR.PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- P.K.RAMANKUTTY S/O. CHERIYAKARUMAN, PADINJAREKUNDU VEEDU, KUMBARATHARA, THENUR P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT/ 1ST REV. PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEENAKSHI W/O.P.K.RAMANKUTTY KUNNATH VEEDU, KUMBARATHARA, THANUR P.O., PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN.J --------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in MC No.38/94 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Palakkad. The respondent herein, along with her son, as second petitioner, preferred the petition before the trial court on 10.10.94 u/S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a plea that about 17 years back the revision petitioner married the respondent in accordance with the customary rites and out of the wedlock, the second petitioner was born. Soon after the marriage the revision petitioner started ill treatment and because of the cruelty, the respondent had to take shelter at her home along with the 2nd petitioner and that the respondent and the 2nd petitioner had no means of their own for maintenance. Whereas the revision petitioner was hale and healthy and was a potter, who was able to maintain the respondent and the 2nd petitioner. With this plea, an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- each per month was claimed. 2. The revision petitioner in response to the process issued, entered appearance and contended that he had not married the Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 2 respondent and that he is not the father of the 2nd petitioner and that he is not liable to maintain the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. The first respondent was examined as PW1. A neighbour was examined as PW2. The second petitioner was examined as PW3. Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the petitioner's. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Ext.P1 was marked. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding in favour of the revision petitioner. Consequently the petition was dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad as Crl.RP No.4/1997. Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc-II, Palakkad, to whom the revision was made over, by order dated 28.5.2002, arrived at a finding that there is evidence regarding the marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent. It was also found that the respondent was devoid of means for her maintenance and that the revision petitioner was earning Rs.100/- per day from his pottery business. Consequently the revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.300/- from the date Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 3 of petition. During the pendency of the petition before the trial court the second petitioner attained majority. Though he had also joined the revision petition, the prayer for maintenance was not seen pressed for. Neither it was considered nor any order was passed. 5. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting maintenance, this revision petition was filed. 6. Both sides were heard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had taken me through the evidence on record. PW1 had given evidence to the effect that the revision petitioner married her and that the second petitioner is the child born out of the wedlock. It was also deposed that she was ill- treated and thrown out of the matrimonial home and was living separate. Ext.P1 is the copy of the lawyer notice demanding maintenance, Ext.P2 is the reply notice, Ext.P3 is the extract of the School Admission Register. Ext.P4 is the extract of the Birth Certificate. PW1 also would depose that the revision petitioner is the person mentioned as Ramankutty in Ext.P3 and P4. 7. PW2, a neighbour of the parties had deposed that the revision petitioner married the respondent in accordance with Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 4 customary rites and he had attended the marriage. 8. PW3 had deposed that the revision petitioner is his father and that Ramankutty mentioned in Ext.P3 and P4 as his father is none else other than the revision petitioner. 9. As against the evidence of PWs. 1 to PW3 the revision petitioner as CPW1 had deposed that he had not married the respondent and that the second petitioner is not the child born out of the wedlock. He had also denied the allegation that he is the person mentioned as father in Ext.P3 and P4. It was also deposed that a relative of PW2 had attempted to trespass into his brother's property, following which there was a case and that PW2 requested the revision petitioner to withdraw the case for which he was not amenable and that PW2 is motivated against him. 10. Going by the evidence on PWs. 1 and 2, I find that they had deposed about a marriage ceremony. Their evidence regarding the ceremony performed is nothing less than a marriage ceremony. The question is whether their evidence is believable or not. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge believed that evidence. The revision petitioner had advanced a case that there are 4 persons in the locality known as Ramankutty and he is not the person mentioned as Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 5 Ramankutty in the petition. However, on a close scrutiny of the evidence of CPW1, I fail to find that he had advanced a specific case for chosing him as the husband of the respondent in preference to others, if there are other persons with name Ramankutty. Though the revision petitioner had challenged the evidence of PW1 that the person shown in Ext.P3 and P4 is not the revision petitioner the evidence of PW2 and PW3 on that aspect was not much challenged in cross examination. So also though it was suggested to PW2 that because of the property dispute he had been adducing evidence against the revision petitioner there is no suggestion to PW1 regarding that aspect. It is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner acknowledged the original of Ext.P1 notice which was sent to the address shown in Ext.P3 and P4. Though the revision petitioner has got a case that there is mistaken identity there is no mention in the objection that he is not the person mentioned or described in the lawyer notice or in the petition filed by the respondent. It is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner has got a case that the respondent was married to one Chami but there is no mention in the objection or in the evidence of the revision petitioner to identity Chamy, the person said to have married the Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 6 respondent. No material was brought on record to show that there exists a valid marriage relationship between the respondent and any person other than the revision petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehimentally argued that in the evidence it was revealed that the respondent had filed a petition before the Police claiming maintenance and at the Police Station there was an understanding to pay maintenance to the second petitioner but the respondent had not cared to call for the petition from the Police Station and thus there is suppression of best evidence. It was also argued that PW3 had deposed that the revision petitioner was the person who took the second petitioner to the School and got admitted and in the normal course there should have been an application filed by the revision petitioner and the respondent would have summoned that document. But that was also not done. According to the learned counsel, on that count also best evidence was not brought on record. 12. In a matter like this it is not at all relevant as to what all things would be the best evidence. But what is to be considered is whether the evidence available on record can be relied upon to adjudge the dispute. It could not be ignored that the parties are Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 7 illiterate and residing in a remote area in Palakkad District. By profession, they are clay pot makers. When the evidence of PW1 to 3 and CPW1 and are analysed in the standard of the parties, I fail to find any material to reject the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. The Addl. Sessions Judge had correctly analysed the evidence and arrived a finding regarding the marriage between the revision petitioner and first respondent. No where, I find that the Addl. Sessions Judge had gone wrong in appreciating the evidence. Hence, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the finding regarding the marriage and the order impugned granting maintenance. The quantum of maintenance granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge is only 300/- per months. It is only a pittance for a grown up lady. With the current rate of essential commodities, it is not at all sufficient to make both ends meet. It is neither beyond the means of the revision petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of the revisional powers. Finding of the Addl. Sessions Judge is in true with the evidence on record. It is a finding of fact as to whether there was marriage or not. After a finding regarding the existence of a marital relationship between the parties and on finding that revision petitioner failed to maintain the respondent, who is the wife of the Crl.R.P.NO. 1056 OF 2002 8 revision petitioner maintenance order was issued. There is no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit. It is dismissed. No costs. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. pm