Skip to content


Ellammal Vs. Veeraswamy Alias Lalgudiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ28
AppellantEllammal
RespondentVeeraswamy Alias Lalgudiar
Excerpt:
- - i am quite satisfied from the evidence and the admission made by the respondent in a prior maintenance proceedings that the petitioner was the wife of the respondent......revision petition has been filed by the wife against the order or the learned additional first class magistrate, kulithalai, declining to grant maintenance to hex on the ground that she was not the wife. t may, say, at the outset itself, that the order of the learned additional first class magistrate is not only absurd but also perverse. it appears that he has not read the provisions of the indian evidence act to know the significance of an admission made by a party. evidence was let in that in a prior suit for maintenance filed by the revision petitioner, the respondent filed a written statement that he married the petitioner 15 years ago and that she was the wife. it is, undoubtedly, an admission made against his own interests and a relevant one in the circumstances of the case as.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the wife against the order or the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai, declining to grant maintenance to hex on the ground that she was not the wife. T may, say, at the outset itself, that the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate is not only absurd but also perverse. It appears that he has not read the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act to know the significance of an admission made by a party. Evidence was let in that in a prior suit for maintenance filed by the revision petitioner, the respondent filed a written statement that he married the petitioner 15 years ago and that she was the wife. It is, undoubtedly, an admission made against his own interests and a relevant one in the circumstances of the case as the suit is for maintenance by the petitioner as the wife of the respondent. This admission has been ignored totally by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate. On this aspect, he has observed as follows:

No doubt, P.W. 1 described herself as the wife in a sale deed in which the respondent has attested and in his counter in a previous suit, the respondent mentioned that P.W. 1 was married to her. Now he resiles from the statement.

2. It is, of course, quite natural for a person who is proceeded against for maintenance to deny the previous admissions and it is for the court to ascertain or get an explanation from him as to why he has made such admissions and as to why he resiles from them. As already pointed out by me, (his admission cannot be taken to be a stray one as one made in certain unconnected proceedings, but this admission was made in a matter where the wife is claiming maintenance in a suit on the ground that the respondent was the husband. This admission has got a direct bearing on the question of the status of the petitioner as the wife of the respondent. This one circumstance would be enough to hold that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Even besides this, P. Ws. 2 and 3 who are local villagers, who were examined as witnesses to speak about the marriage, have deposed to the effect that the petitioner and the respondent lived together as husband and wife. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate has simply brushed aside their evidence by saying that their evidence is not satisfactory. He, however, holds that the respondent was living with the petitioner as her husband till he married again.

3. While there is an admission in a similar proceeding, there is no necessity, at{ all, to call for proof. Whenever admissions are made by parties against their own interest, the matters relating to these admissions do not require proof. I am quite satisfied from the evidence and the admission made by the respondent in a prior maintenance proceedings that the petitioner was the wife of the respondent. So far as the quantum is concerned, the respondent submits that he has no means to pay and that he has no properties. It is true that he is an old man and it is stated that the present wife is the fourth wife. He has got means to engage counsel both in the lower Court and here also. Today the respondent has come with an advocate from the local bar. He must have had sufficient means to pay and meet the litigation expenses. I am, therefore, of the view thai the respondent has got the necessary means to pay. In the circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the couple arc old, I direct the respondent to pay Rs. 20/- every month as maintenance from this date. Hence this revision case is allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //