IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 178 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.356/2001 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM ........................... REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.C.KOUSALLIA, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, CHAKKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SIVARAJAN SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.GOPINATHAN NAIR, BADGE NO. 4256, ASSISTANT MANAGER, MAINTENEANCE (ELECTRICALS), ELECTRICAL SHIFT MAINTENANCE, F.A.C.T. UDYOGAMANDAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.178 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family court, Ernakulam in M.C.356/01. The family court rejected the request for maintenance by the petitioner on the ground that the marriage is not proved and the maintenance petitioner had failed to prove that she is the wife of the respondent therein. It is against that decision the revision is preferred by the wife. I feel a reference to the maintenance petition itself will go against the case. It is specifically avered that there was a marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent on 27.5.1973 as per Hindu custom and practice. It is also specifically avered that there was a marriage Udampady between the two on the previous day of the marriage. Again in para 5 it is avered that after a week of the marriage, the respondent left the residence of the petitioner without any reason. So in order to sustain the case it is become incumbent upon the revision petitioner to prove the marriage. The document that is proved in this case at the most is the marriage Udampady alleged to be executed on 26.5.1973. It has to be remembered that revision petitioner claims the status of the wife not on the basis of the Udampady but on the basis of the marriage alleged to have been taken place on 27.5.1973. Absolutely no acceptable evidence is tendered before the court to prove the same. A photograph without proving the same cannot be looked into as evidence and the decree of the court rejecting the prayer of the respondent to declare the marriage Udampady as invalid also will not help the petitioner to prove that she is the wife of the respondent. If a man or woman lives for so long number of years under the same roof then law recognises them as husband and wife. In this case before us it is specifically pleaded in the petition itself, the so called husband left the house immediately after the marriage. So it has to be stated that there is no evidence regarding the marriage. There is no evidence regarding the cohabitation and when it is so, the court would not interfere with the order of the family court holding that the revision petitioner had not succeeded in proving the marriage. Therefore, the revision lacks merits and hence dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE sou.