IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 59 of 2004() ------------------------------- MC.563/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER (S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- 1. K.R. ZUHARA, D/O. ERAMULLAN 36 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, NAYANAR COLONY, THALASSERY AMSOM, CHALIL DESOM. 2. IRSHAD, S/O. ZUHARA, MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER ZUHARA. BY ADVS.MR.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN MR.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------- 1. P.P. HUSSAIN, S/O. IMBICHI MAMMU, 50 YEARS, DRIVER, KAYEES LANE, THALASSERY AMSOM, CHALIL DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR. E.V.NAYANAR FOR R1 MR.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C).No. 59 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C. 563/2003. It is an application filed by the revision petitioner and her son for maintenance against the respondent. The court below found that there was no evidence to show that the first marriage between the revision petitioner and one Abdullakutty had been dissolved at the time of the second marriage and therefore held that she is not a legally wedded wife entitled to claim maintenance. The court found that the 2nd petitioner is born to the respondent in the 1st petitioner and therefore granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. It is against that decision the present revision is filed by the wife. 2. I had perused the records as well as the evidence tendered by the parties in the case. The crucial point that requires attention is whether there was any subsisting marriage at the time of the second marriage of the 1st petitioner. If the answer is yes, then she is not entitled to claim maintenance because it will be an invalid marriage under the principles of law. R.P.(F.C) No. 59/2004 -2- In order to prove that there was no marriage subsisting at the time, the petitioner produced Exts. P1 to P3 and the respondent produced Exts. D1 and D2. Admittedly the parties belonged to Thalassery. The marriage was solemnised at Ponnani. The photocopy of the Nikah form produced as Ext. P3 is totally different from the original. In Ext. P3 column No. 12 the entries “ In the copy it is only “ “ and nothing to show about the Talaq. The name of the bride groom is shown as P.P. Hussain, Puthan Purayil, Thruvangad. But in the photocopy it is Puthan Purayil Hussain, S/o. Imbichi. In Ext. P3 column No. 8 it is stated that a sum of Rs. 101/- was paid as Mahar whereas in the photocopy it is totally blank. There is no signature of the party in the photocopy as well. The age of the bridegroom is shown as 30 in the photocopy whereas 40 in the original. The age of the bride is shown as 25 in the photocopy whereas 21 in the original. So there is contradictions on the face of the documents attempted to be relied upon to prove the factum of divorce. PW3 is a Khasi. He had deposed and admitted in the cross examination that he had not been shown the talaq form with respect to the previous R.P.(F.C) No. 59/2004 -3- marriage. He is not able to speak about the in consistency with respect to the age or anything else. So the learned Trial Judge elaborately considered the reliability of the documentary evidence read with the oral evidence of PW3 and did not accept the case of divorce of the petitioner with Abdullakutty. Ext. P2 is alleged to be a document executed by Abdullakutty on 10.12.1983 to show that there had been a divorce. A mere look at that document would show that the year 1984 has been corrected as 1983. The date also has been corrected obviously for the reason that if the divorce is in December 1984 and if the marriage had taken place on 14.3.1984, there was no divorce at the time of contract in the second marriage. Therefore I do not find any merits in the contention of the petitioner. So there is no perversity, illegality or misappreciation of the documentary and oral evidence which requires interference at the hands of the revisional court within its limited jurisdiction. Therefore the R.P(F.C) fails and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm