IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 307 of 2001(A) ------------------------------------- MC.9/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER : ------------------------ K.K.CHANDRIKA, W/O.PADMANABHAN, 42 YEARS, NO JOB, KANARAKADAVTH KOVUMMAL, KARIYAD AMSOM DESOM, P.O. KARIYAD BY ADV. MR.P.K.VIJAYAN SMT.K.V.JAYALAKSHMY RESPONDENT : ----------------- PARAMBATH THAZHEKUNIYIL, PADMANABHAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, 46 YEARS, KARIYAD P.O., KARIYAD AMSOM DESOM ADV. MR.R.SURENDRAN MR.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN MR.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.307 OF 2001 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C.No.9/98 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery. She preferred the above petition before the lower court seeking an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended by the revision petitioner that on 01.04.1992, the respondent married the revision petitioner in accordance with the customary rites and after marriage, they had been residing together as husband and wife and that on 29.05.1997, the revision petitioner was taken to the house of her sister at Azhiyoor and the respondent went away. Thereafter, the revision petitioner was not provided any maintenance and that the revision petitioner had no source of income for her maintenance. Whereas, the respondent was employed as a medical representative and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In addition to that, he had landed properties whereby an income of Rs.24,000/- was obtained per annum. With this pleadings the Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2001 2 revision petitioner sought for an order directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The respondent entered appearance and denied the marital relationship and further contended that the revision petitioner is the wife of one Krishnan and that two children were born out of their wedlock and that one of the sons is well employed and that the respondent is not liable to maintain the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner had to seek maintenance from her husband or son and that the revision petitioner is getting monthly income of Rs.5,000/- from her landed properties and that the respondent is devoid of any property to get an earning of Rs.24,000/- and that he is married and had to maintain his wife and child and prayed for dismissal of the petition. It was also alleged by the respondent that the revision petitioner was employed as servant at the house of the respondent and since she was sent out by his mother, she was ill motivated and filed this petition. 3. On the side of the revision petitioner, herself and 2 other witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3. Exts.P1 to P5 Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2001 3 were also marked. On the other hand, the respondent was examined as CPW1. Two other witnesses were also examined on his side. Exts.D1 to D12 were marked. 4. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding that Ext.P1 would establish that the petitioner is married to one Krishnan and so, she is not entitled to get an order for maintenance against the respondent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. Assailing that order, this revision petition was preferred. The point that raised for consideration is:- Whether the impugned order is vitiated by any error, illegality or impropriety. 5. The point : In the petition, it was alleged that the revision petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. When she was examined, she had deposed that she had earlier married to one Krishnan and that marital relationship was dissolved. In proof of that version, Ext.P1 agreement dated 17.08.1990 was executed. It was further deposed that thereafter on 01.04.1992, the respondent married the revision petitioner. Admittedly Ext.P1 agreement Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2001 4 is subsequent to the commencement of the amendment to Hindu Marriage Act and on the date of Ext.P1 no customary dissolution of the marriage is permitted by law. It is also crucial to note that her marriage with Krishnan was suppressed in the petition. But the respondent alleged it. It is in this background the revision petitioner admitted her marriage with Krishnan and brought forward Ext.P1 with a plea that the earlier marriage was dissolved. The dissolution now brought in evidence is without the plea. Petitioner had suppressed material fact regarding her marital tie with Krsihnan. When it was felt that she could not suppress it any longer, dissolution through Ext.P1 is brought. Ext.P1 is not legally valid. In the circumstances, no reliance can be given to Ext.P1 to arrive a conclusion that there was dissolution of marriage in between the revision petitioner and her husband, Krishnan. Learned Magistrate is right in arriving a conclusion that the revision petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Krishnan and there is no proof to conclude that the marriage was ever dissolved. Respondent cannot be compelled to maintain the wife of another. Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2001 5 6. It is true that PW2 was examined by the petitioner in support of her evidence that on 01.04.1992, the respondent married the revision petitioner in accordance with the customary rites. Ext.P2 voters list was also relied upon by the revision petitioner to show that the revision petitioner and the respondent were residing in house No.913 and they are voters from the very same house. On the other hand, the respondent relied upon Exts.D1, D2 and D3 to show that the name of the revision petitioner did not find a place in the voters list for 1994 and 1995 where the name of the respondent was registered as a voter. However, these documents are not relevant because of the facts proved by Ext.P1 and the admission of the revision petitioner that she was married to one Krishnan. Once it is established that there was an earlier marriage, it is for the revision petitioner to prove that before the marriage alleged in this petition there was a valid dissolution of the first marriage. So long as there is no proof regarding any dissolution of the first marriage between the revision petitioner and Krishnan, it had to be presumed that there is no dissolution of the marriage with Krishnan even if Crl.R.P.No.307 of 2001 6 the revision petitioner had been residing together as husband and wife with the respondent or that any marriage ceremony was performed in between the revision petitioner and the respondent. Even if there was any such rituals, it had to be legally presumed that the so called second marriage is void and the revision petitioner is not entitled to seek an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent. The other documents are also not relevant. Such being the materials on record, I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The learned Magistrate had correctly analysed the evidence and arrived a finding against revision petitioner and there is no reason for any interference. Point found accordingly. In the result, the revision petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE pac