In an appeal against a maintenance suit dismissed on the ground that appellants failed to prove legal marriage and parentage, the Kerala High Court affirmed the trial court's finding and dismissed the appeal due to lack of evidence.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931
AS.No. 681 of 1997()
-------------------OS.66/1992 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT(S):
BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
BALAGOPALAN, SON OF PADMANABHAN, VIKKIRIPARAMBU HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY, ARYAD NORTH, ALLEPPY, WORKING AS TEACHER, VICTORIA MEMORIAL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, CHITTUR, PALGHAT.
ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
A.S.NO.681 OF 1997
JUDGMENT
5th January, 2010
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
A.S.No.681 of 1997
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in OS.No.66/1992 on the file of the Additional
Sub Court, Alapuzha are the appellants. The suit was filed for arrears of maintenance. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and that the second plaintiff is the daughter born to the defendant in that wedlock. The suit was dismissed with cost of the defendant. The parties hereinafter are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed in the suit.
A.S.No.681 of 1997
-2-
A.S.No.681 of 1997
-3-
noted that the records are not produced regarding the date of marriage, place of marriage, time of marriage etc. and could not prove that the parties performed the ceremonies of marriage. The court also held that there is no foundation in the pleadings.
A.S.No.681 of 1997
-4-
ration card, electoral card etc. which would go to show that the first plaintiff and the defendant are living together as husband and wife. The plaintiff also failed to examine neither the witnesses who were present at the time of marriage nor the priest who had conducted the ceremonies of marriage. As PW1 she tendered evidence stating that her uncle, her mother and other relatives participated in the marriage. None of them were examined to prove the factum of marriage. The Court below scrutinized the evidence with reference to Ext.B14 to B17 and rightly concluded that the name of the defendant was not mentioned in the column wherein the name of the father had to be filled.
-5-
A.S.No.681 of 1997
and Criminal Appeal no.58/92 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari and the Session's Court, Alappuzha respectively. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the judgment in Criminal appeal No. 58/92 was set aside by this court in revision. In the circumstances no reliance can be placed on Ext.A1 and A2. Thus the trial courts finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and the second plaintiff is the daughter born in the wedlock has to be sustained. The overwhelming evidence adduced by the defendant positively shows that he married only once and that is in the year 1979. The evidence adduced in this case positively point out that there is no bonafide in filing the suit and the suit was filed as an experimental measure.
I fully agreed with the findings entered by the trial court on all issues, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In the result, appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
jma.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are the legally wedded wife and daughter of the respondent entitling them to maintenance.
Whether the trial court's finding that the appellants failed to prove the factum of marriage and parentage was sustainable.
SANTHAMMA
VALSALA
BALAGOPALAN
HARUN-UL-RASHID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
