Mayakrishnan vs M. Thangeswari and Muthurathi

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—By consent, the main Revision itself is taken up for final disposal.

The revision Petitioner is the husband and challenging the vires of the order, dated 13.09.2010 made in M.C. No. 56 of 2008 on the file of the

Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- each to the Respondents herein, the present Revision

Petition is filed.

A perusal of the typed set of documents would disclose that the marriage between the Petitioner and the first Respondent was solemnized on

24.03.2002 as per the wishes of the elders of both the family and out of wedlock, three girl children were born. The second girl child died within

one year.

It is the specific case of the first Respondent that on account of demand made by the Petitioner herein, her parents bought three plots at a cost

of Rs. 2,80,000/- and inspite of that, the Petitioner started harassing the first Respondent by demanding dowry and other articles and since it has

not been complied with, she was driven out from the matrimonial home and also took her elder child, namely, Muthurathi, who is arrayed as the

second Respondent. The first Respondent in this regard also lodged a complaint on 18.09.2008. It is also the case of the first Respondent that she

and her child is under the care and custody of her parents and that, the revision Petitioner herein is employed in a private Mill and also cultivating

paddy and also selling flowers and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and consequently, he is under delegation to pay the maintenance to

the Respondents at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-.

The revision Petitioner herein, who is arrayed as the Respondent in M.C. No. 56 of 2008, filed the counter opposing the said application by

stating that the first Respondent at the time of leaving the matrimonial home, left the second child in the custody of the revision Petitioner and also

lodged a false police complaint against him, which necessitated him to file a Petition in Crl.O.P. No. 9763 of 2009 and he obtained an order of

anticipatory bail, on 28.10.2008. The case after investigation has culminated in charge sheet in Crime No. 12 of 2008 for the alleged commission

of offences u/s 498(A), 408 of IPC and also 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the revision Petitioner is also facing prosecution in that regard.

It is further stated by the revision Petitioner that he is also maintaining his parents and also his sister and the girl child left in her custody by the

first Respondent and he is earning a sum of Rs. 70/- to 90/- per day by doing agricultural coolie work and therefore, he is unable to pay the

maintenance.

During the course of enquiry in M.C. No. 56 of 2008, the first Respondent herein was examined as PW-1 and Exhibits P-1 and P-2 were

marked and the revision Petitioner himself examined as RW-1. The Lower Court after taking into consideration the materials available on record

has ordered the revision Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- each to the Respondents and challenging the legality of the same, the present

Revision Petition is filed.

Heard Mr. A. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Ramasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents

and also perused the typed set of documents.

The marriage between the revision Petitioner and the first Respondent was solemnized on 24.03.2002 and out of wedlock, three girl children

were born and out of them, one child died. According to the first Respondent, who is the wife of the revision Petitioner, she was driven out from

the matrimonial home on account of unreasonable demand of dowry and other articles and she and her child, are unable to maintain themselves and

therefore, prays for maintenance.

It is the case of the revision Petitioner that the first Respondent left the matrimonial home on her own volition and in this regard, he has filed a

Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was subsequently not pressed and thereafter, he has also filed a Petition for divorce. Even though,

the revision Petitioner expressed his inclination to live with the first Respondent, she is deliberately not chosen to live with him and also she left the

matrimonial home and that also left one of his children in his custody. It is also the case of the revision Petitioner that he is also maintaining his age

old parents and also his sister and with the meagre income of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 90/- per day, he cannot pay maintenance to the Respondents.

This Court after taking into consideration of the rival submissions and on the perusal of the materials available on record, is of the view that the

quantum of maintenance ordered by the Trial Court requires modification.

It is not in dispute that the first Respondent is legally wedded wife of the revision Petitioner and on the legitimacy of the second Respondent, is

not under dispute and therefore, he is bound to maintain them.

The question whether the first Respondent is living away from the revision Petitioner without any justifiable or reasonable cause can be decided

in the divorce petition filed by the revision Petitioner and this Court is not expressing any opinion. The Court taking into consideration that the

revision Petitioner is also maintaining his age old parents and also having the custody of one of the girl children, is of the view that the instead of

directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- each to the Respondents, he can be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,250/- each to the Respondents and

the same would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order dated 13.09.2010 made in M.C. No. 56 of 2008 is modified in so far as

quantum of maintenance is concerned and the revision Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,250/- each to the Respondents. The arrears of

maintenance is to be calculated on the basis of this modified order and in respect of future maintenance, the revision Petitioner shall pay the same to

the Respondents on or before 5th of every English calendar month. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.