The court emphasized that a domestic relationship akin to marriage entitles a woman to maintenance, and the Magistrate is not competent to decide the validity of marriage in a maintenance case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure against the order, dated 17.06.2016 passed in MC No.2 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.)

1. This criminal revision is directed against the order, dated 17.06.2016 passed in MC No.2 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2. The marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnised and the same was registered on 25.05.1995 with the Sub Registrar of Periakulam. The respondent/husband got permanent job as 'Helper' in TNEB in the year 2008. Thereafter, due to matrimonial tiff, the petitioner/wife was sent out from the matrimonial home and the respondent/husband started to live with one Mahalakshmi and based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner/wife, FIR has been registered in Crime No.17 of 2011 for the offence under sections 498-A, 406, 494 IPC r/w section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the respondent/husband and the persons, who cause for the second marriage of the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition in MC No.2 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the respondent/husband. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on 17.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/wife is before this court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner/petitioner is that when the petitioner has stated that they lived as husband and wife, pursuant to the Registered Agreement for Marriage, dated 25.05.1995 between her and the respondent, registered with the Sub Registrar No.1, Periyakulam, the same is a clear evidence to prove the marriage between them and Ex.P1 is an unassailable document and the same cannot be disbelieved and Ex.R1 produced on the side of the respondent to prove the marriage between the petitioner and the brother of the respondent, but it was not produced and marked through the author of the document or through the authorised person from the concerned Church and Ex.R3 the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2011 categorically proved the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as wife and husband and the same has been admitted by the respondent and Ex.R1 has neither any legal value nor any evidential value and hence, Ex.R1 has to be rejected by the trial court and the petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the respondent failed to maintain the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance and prays that the criminal revision may be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/respondent argued that there was no marriage between the respondent and the petitioner and the above marriage was not registered and the marriage between the petitioner and the brother of the respondent was held on 04.06.1992 in a Church as per the Christian Custom and due to misunderstanding between the brother of the respondent and the petitioner, the petitioner deserted her husband and lived separately and the respondent worked in TNEB on contract basis and the respondent has to maintain his family members and the respondent married one Mahalakshmi and lived with her and the petitioner is not the wife of the respondent and there was no dowry demand as stated by the petitioner and the petitioner gave a false complaint against the respondent and there was no marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and hence, the respondent is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner and prays that the criminal revision has to be dismissed.

6. In this case, the petitioner stated that the marriage between her and the respondent was registered as per Ex.P1 and hence, she is the wife of the respondent and the respondent failed to maintain her and hence, the respondent is liable to maintain her and prays that she is entitl