1. This revision arises from an order passed in M. C. 50 of 1970 by the District Magistrate, Trivandrum. The petitioner was the husband of the 1st respondent and is the father of respondents 2 and 3. The claim for maintenance filed by the respondents herein was resisted by the petitioner on the ground (1) that he had divorced the first petitioner by registered letter on 13-1-1966 and (2) that the third petitioner was not his child. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 10-7-1958. The 2nd petitioner is aged 10 and the third aged 4. In the petition for maintenance, it was alleged that the husband had neglected to maintain the wife and children despite notice demanding maintenance. The husband is employed in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and gets Rs. 250/- every month.

2. The petitioner before the lower court examined herself as pw.1 and the counter petitioner as CPW.1. The learned Magistrate considered the question of divorce and found that there is no evidence to show that the wife received the registered letter dated 13-1-1966 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the divorce was effected on that date. However, relying up