C.P. Chitra v. K. Myilsamy : 2013 (5) RCR (Civil) 688 : 2012 (4) MadLJ (Cri) 326 : 2013 (5) RCR (Cri) 519 : 2012 LRC Online 792 (Mad)
Section 125-Dismissal of petition-Revision-Deed of Mutual Consent for Separation was written and both Parties Signed in The Consent Letter-As per agreement both had separated and started leading their lives separately-Strong dispute had arisen between the parties since the wife had developed illicit relations with one-No infirmity in impugned order-Petition dismissed.
Held : The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the Court below erred in dismissing the petition without considering the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was subsistent on the date of the petition. It was pointed out that the Court below erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent lived separately on consent and hence not entitled for maintenance. It was also contended that the Court below erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner got married to one Sennimalai and hence she was living in adultery based on voters list and other documents which were not the conclusive proof for marriage especially when the same was denied by the petitioner. As such, it was prayed for allowing the revision and to direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the husband argued that there was a village panchayat which was conducted in the presence of both parties and an agreement was made. As per agreement both had separated and started leading their lives separately. The strong dispute had arisen between the parties since the wife had developed illicit relations with one Sennimalai Gounder.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order passed in M.C. No.20 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, dated 20.11.2008, this Court does not find any infirmity regarding the maintenance liability. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.