Chellapandi vs Poongodi, Kishon Mala and Silendra Babu, represented by their mother and natural guardian, the first respondent herein Poongodi

Honourable Mr. Justice P.R. Shivakumar

The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, directing the petitioner to

pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. (Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to each one of the respondents herein) as interim maintenance pending disposal of M.C. No. 3 of

2011, a petition filed u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. The first respondent is the wife and the respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children of the revision

petitioner. The second and third respondents are aged about 5 years and four years respectively. Making clear averments that the first

respondent/wife is not in a position to eke her livelihood to maintain herself and to maintain her children after they were deserted by the petitioner,

who also neglected and refused to maintain them, prayer was made for an order directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of

Rs. 1000/- p.m. to each one of the respondents herein and also other amounts for other expenses.

Pending disposal of M.C. No. 3 of 2011, the respondents have filed Crl.M.P. No. 1871 of 2011, seeking an interim order of maintenance.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the respondents herein were entitled to an

order of interim maintenance as prayed for. Taking into account the primafacie nature of the case, the needs of the respondents herein and the

earning capacity of both the parties, namely, the revision petitioner and the first respondent and the respective pleadings made in this regard, the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai expressed the view that it was just to fix an amount of Rs. 3000/- p.m. (Rs. 1000/- p.m. to each one of the

respondents herein) as interim maintenance, pending disposal of the above said Maintenance Case.

The said order is sought to be challenged by invoking the revisional powers of this Court. One of the grounds on which the order is sought to be

challenged is that the power of the Judicial Magistrate, to award interim maintenance u/s 125(1) is restricted to Rs. 500/- per claimant and the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai exceeded his power by granting interim maintenance to each one of the respondents at the rate of Rs.

1000/- p.m. The petitioner seems to have been misguided by the original text of the provision u/s 125(1) of Cr.P.C., which was amended long

back in the year 2001 itself, deleting the ceiling provided therein. Therefore, the said contention deserves rejection in limini.

Admittedly, the revision petitioner is employed as a Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai. According to the respondents,

he is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- , besides owning a residential house worth about Rs. 2 lakhs. The revision petitioner, according to

the respondents, is deriving an additional income of Rs. 10,000/- from agriculture. The revision petitioner, who chose to file a counter in the

Miscellaneous Petition seeking an order for payment of interim maintenance, has simply found fault with the respondents in not stating the avocation

of the first respondent and the income derived by her and prayed for the dismissal of the claim. However, in the very same counter, he has

admitted that he was in receipt of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. as gross salary, but contended that his carry home salary was Rs. 5000/- p.m. Now, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in receipt of a sum of Rs. 6000/- p.m. as his carry home salary. When asked about

the deductions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that not only the compulsory deductions but also deductions towards

repayment of the loans obtained from the Provident Fund Credit are being made. A substantial amount which the petitioner will be getting as

collection batta is not accounted for.

The revision petitioner himself has conceded that he can part with one fourth of his earnings. However, he has stated in his counter that he is

ready to give Rs. 1250/- as interim maintenance to the respondents. That itself will be enough to made out a primafacie case that the respondents

are in dire need of financial help to maintain them and that the first respondent is not in a position to maintain herself and her children out of her own

earnings. As it is conceded that the total salary excluding the collection batta of the petitioner is Rs. 12,000/- , this Court does not think that the

amount awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai as interim maintenance is excessive. The finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Nilakkottai that the respondents do require at least the said amount as interim maintenance pending disposal of the maintenance case, cannot also

be found fault with.

This Court does not find any discrepancy or infirmity in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai in granting interim maintenance

at the rate of Rs. 3000/- p.m., to the respondents who are three in number. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai has not chosen

to make it clear as to from which date the interim maintenance is to be paid. Hence this Court deems it fit to clarify that the order for payment of

interim maintenance shall be operative from the date of filing of Cr.M.P. No. 1871 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Nilakkottai. With the above clarification, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai is confirmed and the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed. It is made clear that none of the observations made in this order shall influence the decision to be arrived at in the main maintenance

case.