IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 24 of 2011() ----------------------- CRRP.13/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD MC.18/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- SASIKUMAR P.V.S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PATTATHIL VENGAYIL HOUSE, KOOVATTI IN KINANOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. GEETHAK., D/O. LATE KUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHAMAKUZHI, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, P.O. KALICHANADUKKAM - 671 314. 2. SARATHNATH, D/O. GEETHA K., RESIDING AT CHAMAKUZHI, THAYANNUR VILLAGE P.O. KALICHANADUKKAM - 671 314. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.24 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.18 of 2003 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg a proceeding initiated by respondents 1 and 2 for maintenance. According to respondents 1 and 2, first respondent had married the uncle of petitioner on 05.03.1990 and while so, petitioner and first respondent fell in love, eloped and lived as husband and wife till 10.05.2009. The second respondent was born in that affair. The Uncle of petitioner filed O.P. No.8 of 1992 seeking divorce against respondent No.1 and that petition was allowed. According to the respondents, on 20.12.1992 petitioner married the first respondent as per custom. Respondents claimed maintenance from petitioner alleging that he is an Autoriksha driver, owns land and is getting Rs.20,000/- per month. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/-, respectively per month as maintenance. Petitioner while admitting paternity of respondent No.2 denied that first respondent is his legally wedded wife. He claimed to have filed O.S.No.442 of 2001 CRL.M.C. No.24 of 2011 -: 2 :- in the court of learned Munsiff, Hosdurg for a declaration in that line. He claimed that he is a coolie earning Rs.50/- per day. Learned Magistrate found that there was valid marriage between petitioner and first respondent on 20.12.1992 (Uncle of petitioner got divorce against first respondent in O.P. No.8 of 1992) and awarded Rs.1,500/- and Rs.750/-, respectively per month to respondents 1 and 2. That order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kasargod in Crl. R.P. No.13 of 2006. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner was not able to tell me about the fate of O.S.No.442 of 2001 filed by petitioner for a declaration that respondent No.1 is not his legally wedded wife. At any rate the criminal court is entitled to pass an order on the strength of materials before it. If ultimately the civil suit is decided against respondent No.1 that is a different matter and it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs based on that decree, as provided under law. 3. So far as the case of respondents 1 and 2 regarding valid marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 is concerned, the first respondent has given evidence as P.W1. P.W.2 claimed that he attended the marriage ceremony between petitioner and first respondent. P.W3 stated that CRL.M.C. No.24 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioner and respondent No.1 were living as husband and wife which was not seriously disputed by petitioner also. Petitioner's case is that he was driven out of the house. He has not disputed paternity of second respondent. When a man and woman lived together as husband and wife for a quite long time, that raised a presumption of validity of marriage. That apart there is evidence P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding marriage of petitioner and first respondent which the courts below were inclined to accept and found in favour of validity of marriage. I do not find reason to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nor am I inclined to think that the amount awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is exorbitant or beyond the paying capacity of petitioner. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv