Kalimuthu vs Sivakamiammal

R. Mala, J.—At the time of admission itself, arguments were heard and final order was passed.

Challenging the impugned order dated 20.02.2014, made in Crl.M.P.No. 17493 of 2012 in M.C.No. 13 of 2007, the present revision has been preferred.

The material facts of the case is that the respondents herein, as petitioners, filed M.C.No. 13 of 2007, claiming maintenance. After examination of witnesses and after hearing both sides, on 30.03.2012, the first respondent herein was awarded Rs.1,250/- and the second respondent herein was awarded Rs.2,250/-, towards maintenance, by the Trial Court. Admittedly, as against the said order, the respondents have not preferred any appeal, but, they filed an application in Crl.M.P.No. 17493 of 2012, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking enhancement of the amount. After examining the witnesses, viz., P.W.1 and D.W.1 and Ex.P.1., the Trial Court enhanced the amount from Rs.1,250/- to Rs.2,500/- in respect of the first respondent and from Rs.2,250/- to Rs.3,500/- in respect of the second respondent, against which, the present revision has been preferred.

Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a retired person and he is aged about 65 years and he has received only a sum of Rs.12,410/- towards pension and at the time of receiving the retiral benefits, he had already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the second respondent. Hence, the learned counsel prays for reduction of the enhanced amount.

Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the second respondent is a differently abled person and she is suffering 90% disability and now, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.15,525/- towards pension. The Trial Court has considered all the aspects and came to a correct conclusion. He would further submit that after the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court, the enhanced amount has not been paid by the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this revision.

On a perusal of the typed-set of papers, it is seen that the respondents herein filed an application in M.C.No. 13 of 2007, wherein on 30.03.2012, the Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,250/- as maintenance, in respect of the first respondent and Rs.2,250/- in respect of the second respondent; admittedly, no appeal has been preferred for enhancement; however, the respondents herein filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the amount, in that, it was enhanced from Rs.1,250/- to Rs.2,500/- in respect of the first respondent and from Rs.2,250/- to Rs.3,500/- in respect of the second respondent; furthermore, at the time of deciding the case, the entitlement of the respondents to claim maintenance is not in dispute; the only dispute is with regard to the quantum; at the time of deciding the quantum, paying capacity of the petitioner has to be considered; according to the petitioner, his monthly pension amount is Rs.12,410/-; however, to prove the same, he has not filed any scrap of paper and per contra, the respondents herein filed Ex.P.1 to prove that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.12,410/- towards pension and now, he has received a sum of Rs.15,525/- as pension.

Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, this Court is of the view that it is necessary to consider the paying capacity of the petitioner while passing order. On the day, as per document Ex.P.1, he has received Rs.12,410/- towards pension. But, admittedly, according to the petitioner, he is aged about 65 years and naturally, the wife is also aged 60 years. It is also admitted by both sides that the second respondent is differently abled person and she is suffering 90% disability. Coming to the income, a male member is not able to maintain his single soul with a sum of Rs.6,000/-, but whereas he is expected his wife and daughter to maintain much below Rs.6,000/-. As per the document Ex.P.1, his pension is Rs.12,410/-. As per the impugned order, only Rs.6,000/- has been paid to the two soul. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance.

Viewing from any angle, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, it is, hereby, confirmed and consequently, the revision is dismissed. The revision petitioner is directed to pay arrears amount, after deducting the amount already paid, to the respondents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he is also directed to pay the enhanced maintenance amount, as ordered by the Trial Court, to the respondents, on or before 5th of every English Calendar month. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.