K.C.Kousallia vs S.Gopinathan Nair on 24 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 178 of 2005()


1. K.C.KOUSALLIA, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S.GOPINATHAN NAIR, BADGE NO. 4256,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SIVARAJAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :24/02/2010

 O R D E R
                        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.