It is alleged in the petition that after two or three years the appellant herein left the house of the respondents father and started living in his native place, but would visit the respondent occasionally.
186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor had a relationship with a married man Leo.
P.C. two or three years after marrying her in 1986.
The petitioner is working as a Secondary Teacher in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore.
P.C. deserted the respondent herein petitioner in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.
After Leo died Taylor sued his widow alleging breach of an implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she claimed maintenance from the estate of Leo.
To prove his marriage with Lakshmi the appellant produced the ration card, voters identity card of his wife, transfer certificate of his son, discharge certificate of his wife Lakshmi from hospital, photographs of the wedding, etc.
The appellant herein has alleged that he was married according to the Hindu Customary Rites with one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980.
Why then was the petition under Section 125 Cr.
In her petition under Section 125 Cr.
Out of the wedlock with Lakshmi a male child was born, who is number studying in an Engineering companylege at Ooty.
This fact also creates some doubt about the case of the respondent herein.
It was held that the alleged companytract rested on meretricious companysideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 12.10.2009.
In his companynter affidavit filed by the appellant herein before the Family Court, Coimbatore, it was alleged that the respondent appellant herein was married to one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980 as per the Hindu Marriage rites and customs and he had a male child, who is studying in C.S.I. Engineering companylege at Ooty.
None has appeared for the respondent although she has been served numberice.
It appears that the respondent D. Patchaiammal filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.
Markandey Katju, J. Leave granted.
P.C. as well as in her deposition in the case the respondent has alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on 14.9.1986, and that he left her after two or three years of living together with her in her fathers house.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellant.
Hence it was prayed that the respondent appellant herein be directed to pay Rs.500/ per month as maintenance to the petitioner.
The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship alleged by Taylor was numberhing more than that of a married man and his mistress.
P.C. she alleged that she did number have any kind of livelihood and she is unable to maintain herself whereas the respondent appellant herein is a Secondary Grade Teacher drawing a salary of Rs.10000/ per month.
The Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Taylor did number live together with Leo but only occasionally spent weekends with him.
P.C. in the year 2001 before the Family Court at Coimbatore in which she alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on 14.9.1986 and since then the appellant herein and she lived together in her fathers house for two or three years.
In both her petition under Section 125 Cr.
P.C. filed in the year 2001, i.e. after a delay of about twelve years, shall have to be satisfactorily explained by the respondent.
It is alleged that the appellant herein respondent in the petition under Section 125 Cr.
It may be numbered that Section 125 Cr.
