Natarajan vs Saraswathy

Swamikannu, J.—This is a criminal revision case filed by Natarajan, Petitioner herein, against the order dated 9th November, 1981 in M.C. No. 55 of 1981 on the file of the court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, finding that the Respondent, revision Petitioner herein, had wilfully neglected to maintain his wife, that she is unable to maintain herself and as such the revision Petitioner herein has to pay a sum of Rs. 250 per month towards maintenance for her, from 16th May, 1981, the date of filing of the petition. The Petitioner Saraswathi, the Respondent herein, is the wife of the revision Petitioner herein.

In this civil revision petition, let us adopt the array of parties as in the trial court. The Petitioner Saraswathi had filed before the Lower court a petition against her husband Natarajan u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for her. In the said petition, it is stated as follows:- The Respondent Natarajan is residing at No 21, Periyar Street, Chidambaram. On 5th February, 1973, at Kumbakonam, as per the Hindu rites and caste custom, their marriage was celebrated. During that time, the elder brother of the Petitioner gave 10 sovereigns of jewels, 930 grams of silver vessels along with eversilver and brass vessels as ''Sreedhana''. He spent Rs. 10,000 towards marriage expenses. During the time of the marriage, Sreenivasa Iyer father of the Respondent, asked on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner should be decked with diamond ear-rings. During that time, the elder brother of the Petitioner one Venkataramani, gave Rs. 500 as there was no means, and it was assured that a sum of Rs. 3,000 would be given subsequently.

After the marriage was celebrated, the Petitioner and the Respondent were residing in the house of the Respondent at Chidambaram along with the Respondent''s father, mother and brothers. Raji, a female child aged about 6 years then, and Hariharan, a male child aged about 4 years then, were born to the Petitioner and the Respondent. After the marriage was celebrated, as desired by the father of the Respondent, Venkataramani, the eldest brother of the Petitioner could not give the balance amount for purchasing the diamond ear-rings. So, the Respondent and his parents as well as his three brothers began to ridicule and ill treat the Petitioner. They also compelled the Petitioner now and then to ask for money from her eldest brother Venkataramani. Thereafter, as agreed, Venkataramani, the eldest brother of the Petitioner gave Rs. 3,000 to the father of the Respondent towards the balance of the amount relating to the diamond ear-rings. Still the Respondent and the members of his family continued to ill-treat the Petitioner. Very often the Respondent used to take the Petitioner to the house of his sister at Vaitheeswaran Koil and leave her there. Even for three or four months, he never used to take her back. Thus the Respondent, with the connivance of his parents and brothers, began to neglect the Petitioner without any basis. On number of occasions, when the Petitioner was in the house of the Respondent, she was not even given proper food or clothes. Thus, she was neglected to be maintained by him.

On 8th March, 1979, another brother of the Petitioner, Narayanan and Aiyasami Iyer, the husband of her sister residing at Sirkali came to see the Petitioner in her house. The Respondent and the members of his family abused them and drove them out of the house. Thereafter, the Petitioner was kept inside the house and the outer door was bolted and she was beaten indiscriminately without any mercy, Thereafter, the Petitioner was forcibly pushed out from inside the house. Thereafter, the said Narayanan and Aiyasami Iyer took the Petitioner who was injured, to the Chidambaram Town Police Station. The Petitioner gave a complaint in that Police Station. The Petitioner was sent by the Police to the Government Hospital at Chidambaram for treatment. Thereafter, the police called the Respondent, his father Sreenivasa Iyer and his brothers to the Police Station and enquired them. The Respondent, his father and his brothers gave in writing voluntarily to the Sub-Inspector of Police undertaking not to ill-treat the Petitioner thereafter and also further assured that they would treat the Petitioner in a proper manner and lead the family life peacefully. They also took the Petitioner along with them. But the Respondent and his parents as well as his brothers continued to ill-treat the Petitioner as before. After some days, the Petitioner was driven out of the house of the Respondent by the Respondent as well as by his relatives. At that time, the jewels worn by the Petitioner as well as the silver, eversilver and brass vessels were retained by them. From that time onwards, the Petitioner has been living at Vaitheeswaran Koil in the house of her sister. The Petitioner has no income of her own. The brothers as well as the husband of the Petitioner''s sister are finding it difficult even to maintain their families and therefore, there is no means for them to maintain the Petitioner. The Respondent is working as a Fitter in the Engineering College attached to the Annamalai University. He gets a monthly salary of Rs. 350. Apart from the same, the Respondent is owning five acres of cultivable land and also a thope consisting of 400 coconut trees. The Respondent is also possessing a cash of Rs. 10,000. Therefore, the Respondent has to pay a sum of Rs. 400 per mensem towards maintenance for the Petitioner. An order to the above effect was prayed for by the Petitioner in her petition.

When the Respondent appeared before the lower court, the copy of the petition filed by the Petitioner was granted to him.

The Respondent has inter alia stated in his counter statement as follows: It is true that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was celebrated on 5th February, 1973 at Kumbakonam. It is not true that during the time of the marriage, the elder brother of the Petitioner Venkataramani gave to the Petitioner 10 sovereigns of jewels, 930 grams of silver vessels as well as ever-silver and brass vessels as ''Sreedhana''. It is not true that on behalf of the Respondent, his father Sreenivasa Iyer demanded diamond ear-rings and that at that time Venkataramani, the elder brother of the Petitioner, said that there was no means at that time and that Rs. 500 alone was paid and the balance amount of Rs. 3,000 was promised to be given subsequently as stated in the petition. The ten sovereigns of jewels which the Petitioner was wearing at the time of the marriage are still worn by her Neither the Respondent nor the members of his family took them away. It is possible during the time of the marriage, the eldest brother of the Petitioner would have spent Rs. 10,000 towards marriage expenses. It is true that subsequent to the marriage between them, a female child by name Raji and a male child by name Hari-haran were born to the Petitioner and the Respondent.

It is not true that either the Respondent or his parents or his brothers ill-treated the Petitioner cruelly and abused her. There was no intention on the part of the Respondent or his parents to get money from the elder brother of the Petitioner.

From the time of the marriage the Petitioner had not been conducting herself politely towards the Respondent or his parents. She used to abuse the parents and brothers of the Respondent in filthy language. That apart, very often without even getting permission or informing her brothers-in-law or her parents-in-law, she used to leave for her sister''s house at Vaitheeswaran Koil. The parents of the Respondent as well as the brothers of the Respondent tolerated the activities of the Petitioner since they were of opinion that the Petitioner wanted to go and live with her husband in a separate house. Without the knowledge of the persons in the family, the Petitioner had been sending messages stealthily through certain persons to her sister at Vaitheeswaran Koil. The Respondent as well as members of his family did not like this attitude of the Petitioner.

On one day, when the Respondent was not in the house, the Petitioner had been talking for a very long time with a stranger. This was objected to by the parents of the Respondent. So the Petitioner sent message to her brother. When her brother came, the situation became tense. It was stressed that a separate family had to be set up. Thereafter, a false complaint was given in the police station. The father of the Respondent gave his consent for the Petitioner and the Respondent setting up a separate family. Accordingly, in the month of Avani, 1979, in Uthamasolaman-galam village, where the Respondent is owning lands, a separate family was set up for the Petitioner and the Respondent. While living there, the Petitioner had indulged in immoral activities. This gave mental agony to the Respondent. He did not want to divulge about the same to any one. He could neither advise her nor leave her in her own way. During the time when the Respondent was not in the house, the Petitioner tried to develop illicit intimacy with one Ramanathan of the said Village belonging to Vannia caste. One night, the Petitioner and the said Ramanathan were found together in a room. This was seen by one of the servants of the Respondent On that day the Respondent was with his parents at Chidambaram When the Petitioner was caught redhanded, she had written a hand-letter and handed over the same to the Respondent. Thereafter, the Petitioner was taken to the house of her elder brother Venkataramani at Madras. When Venkataramani came to know about this matter, he got ashamed and said that under no circumstances he would go over to Chidambaram. This occurrence took place on 5th April, 1980. The said Venka-taraauni was also not willing to keep the Petitioner with him. So the Petitioner had to remain in the house of her sister at Vaitheeswaran Koil. Since the Petitioner has got an immoral character and as she has betrayed her own husband, the Respondent is not obliged to pay maintenance to her. Apart from the monthly salary as a Fitter, the Respondent is not having any other income nor any property. It is not true to say that the Respondent owns 5 acres of land and that from the same, he is getting annually Rs. 10,000 as income. The Respondent finds it difficult even to maintain himself as well as his two children. The Respondent has not instituted any petition for divorce in the court against the Petitioner since he felt shy about the same. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner for maintenance filed by the Petitioner has to be dismissed.

Since the Respondent had raised a contention that inasmuch as the Petitioner had been leading an immoral life and as such on the ground of unchastity, she is not entitled for any maintenance, the lower court examined the witnesses on behalf of the Respondent at the first instance. The Respondent had examined himself as R.W.3 before the lower court. The Respondent as R.W.3 had deposed in his evidence what all he had stated in his counter.

[The discussion of the evidence is omitted -Ed.]

Thereafter, the Petitioner and three witnesses on her behalf were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 before the lower court.

It is seen from the evidence that the marriage between the Petitioner Saraswathi and the Respondent Natarajan was celebrated as per caste customs and Hindu Sastraic rites at Kumbakonam on 5th February, 1973. They lived together as husband and wife till 8th March 1979. It is so admitted by the Respondent. It is also admitted that as per the contention of the Petitioner subsequent to 8th March, 1979, and as per the contention of the Respondent from 5th April, 1980 the Petitioner had not been living with the Respondent, but she had been separately living from the Respondent The Petitioner has stated that the Respondent, his father and his brothers had been ill-treating her for a long time and that on 8th March, 1979, they had beaten her and driven her out of the house as a result of which she had to live separately and had to maintain herself. As she is unable to maintain herself and since the Respondent is having adequate means, she prays that an order directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 400 per mensem by the Respondent to her may be passed.

The lower Court framed the following points for consideration.

Has the Respondent wilfully neglected to maintain his wife, the Petitioner?

Is the Petitioner unable to maintain herself?

Has the Respondent got sufficient means to pay monthly maintenance for his wife, the Petitioner herein, and

If so, what is the monthly maintenance that may be awarded to the Petitioner?

On a consideration of the evidence available on record the lower court has held that the allegation that the Petitioner had illicit sexual relationship with one Rama-nathan is only a false story invented by the Respondent in order to escape from the liability to pay maintenance to the Petitioner herein u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The lower court also held that without any basis, the Respondent wilfully neglected to maintain his wife, the Petitioner. The lower court also held that the Respondent has to pay Rs. 250 per month by way of maintenance to the Respondent as he has got sufficient means to pay the said amount as maintenance to the Petitioner herein.

Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower court, the Respondent has come forward with this revision case. Mr. V. Kunchithapatham, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, revision Petitioner, inter alia contends that the lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and as such, the decision of the lower court has to be revised. Mr. V. Gopinathan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent herein, contends that all the aspects of the case have been comprehensively dealt with by the lower court and as such, no interference is called for.

The point for consideration in this Revision is, whether there is any infirmity in the order under revision?

Point:-The goal of life is Joy, serenity and not pleasure or happiness. Joy is the fulfilment of one''s nature as a human being. We must affirm our being against the whole world, if need be. The aim of love is a happy harmony of man and woman. The concept of Ardhanariswara brings it out. The wife does not belong to the husband but makes a whole with him. The wife is the root of all social welfare. She is with him in the performance of all his duties.

Marriage according to the Hindu Law, is a holy union for the performance of religious duties. The maintenance of a wife by her husband is one arising out of the state of marriage under Hindu law. It is a liability created by the Hindu Law in respect of the jural relation of husband and wife and is not an obligation arising out of a contract. Marriage according to Hindu Sastras, is a sacrament. The gift of a girl to a suitable person is a sacred duty enjoined upon the father, which if duly performed, is held to confer upon him great spiritual benefit. According to the Sastras, a Hindu marriage is a samskara or sacrament giving rise to certain religious duties and obligations like making of offerings to the Devas, oblations to the Pitrus, etc. For the due performance of these religious duties, the participation of a wife is essential who is for that reason called Patni. The perpetuation of the lineage (Santati) through the son is also enjoined as a religious duty, for the son (putra) saves his ancestors from Hell (puth) and brings salvation to them. Marriage is, therefore, undertaken by a Hindu not wholly for worldly purposes but mainly for the fulfilment of these religious duties (Dharma Praja Santatyar-tham) with the association of a wife who is therefore called a Dharma Patni.

At the time of a marriage ceremony in the Brahma form, the following sloka is usually recited:

which implies that the desire to attain heaven prompted the gift of the virgin with wealth and decked with jewels. The desires of different persons at a marriage is expressed as follows:

The bride is anxious for beauty, her mother for wealth, her father for education, her relations for family honour (in the bridegroom), and all the rest for a sumptuous feast. Refusal to maintain was considered to be an offence under Hindu Law. Manu declares:

Neither mother, nor father, nor wife, nor son, deserves abandonment; one abandoning these when not deg, raded (or out-casted for commission of any heinous sin), shall be punished by the King six hundred (Panas). Abandonment is explained by commentators to mean refusal to maintain.

In India, it is provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, (Act No. V of 1898) by Section 488 that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child unable to maintain itself, the District Magistrate, a Presidency Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, at such monthly rate, not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate from time to time directs. Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order or if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may for every breach of the order issue a warrant for levying the amount due in manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month''s allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made; provided that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. If a husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife''s refusal to live with him; provided, further, that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this Section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent. On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this Section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. All evidence regarding this shall be taken in the presence of the husband or father as the case may be, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed in the case of summons cases; provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that he is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglects to attend the court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte. Any orders so made may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within three months from the date thereof. The court in dealing with applications under this section shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just. Proceedings under this Section may be taken against any person in any district where he resides or is, or where he last resided with his wife, or, as the case may be, the mother of the illegitimate child.

In the present Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. II of 1974), u/s 125 of the Act, it is provided as follows:-

125 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child-whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, of

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not bering a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself; or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may upon proof of such neglect or refusal order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied, that the husband of such minor female child if married is not possessed of sufficient means.

The right of Hindu wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or state of matrimony and a Hindu is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife. The obligation to maintain the wife is personal in character and arises from the very existence of the relation between the parties.

Manu, cited in Srikrishna''s commentary on the Dayabhaga declares:

The father, the mother, the Guru (an elderly relation worthy of respect), a wife, an off spring, poor dependants, a guest, and a religious mendicant are declared to be the group of persons who are to be maintained-Manu.

Manu cited in the Mitakshara while dealing with gifts further declares:

The aged mother and father, the chaste wife, and an infant child must be maintained even by doing hundred misdeeds-Manu.

Refusal to maintain a wife was considered to be an offence even during the time of Manu and Yajnavalkya.

Father and son; sister and brother, wife and husband and preceptor and pupil; of these one forsaking the other if not outcasted, deserve the punishment of (the fine of one hundred (panas)-Yajnavalkya.

(Manu has also declared that a wife cannot be detached from her husband either by sale or by abandonment, implying that the marital tie cannot be severed in any way being inalienable by the very nature.

It is laid down that the abandonment of a guiltless wife is punishable by the King. She is entitled to be properly maintained by the husband so long as she remains faithful to him and even in a case of faithlessness, the law declares that she should be provided with a bare pittance for her subsistence In a case where the husband abandons his wife without any fault on her part he should be directed to take her back and on noncompliance should be made liable to yield a third of his fortune to her; When however the husband is so poor that deprivation of a third part of his fortune would be extremely hard, he should be made to provide her with proper maintenance. On her part, it is the duty of the wife to remain faithful and obedient to her husband. According to Hindu law, the condition of women is one of dependance.

Manu declares that "while young she remains under the control of her father, after marriage under the control of her husband and, on his death under the control of her sons, she does not deserve complete independence at any time.

Even when the husband dies, the duty to remain faithful to her husband is not at an end. Manu declares:

Let her rather emaciate her body by living upon pure flowers, roots and fruits but let her not, when the husband is dead, even pronounce the name of another man, and longing for the unparalleled virtue of those who remain steadfast to one husband, let her lead a life of austerity observing strictly the rules of continence and foregoing all sensual pleasures until she dies." It would seem to follow from the above as well as from the distinct text:

a second husband of a good woman is nowhere prescribed" Manu did not approve of a widow remarriage. So commenting upon the above text Kulluka says "that being so, the second marriage of a woman is also prohibited.

The wife is bound to live with her husband and to submit herself to his authority. An agreement enabling the wife to avoid a marriage, or to live separate from her husband if he leaves the village in which his wife, and her parents reside, or if he marries another wife is void. Such an agreement is against public Policy and contrary to the spirit of Hindu Law. An agreement of this kind is no answer to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by a husband against his wife-vide Sitaram v. Aheeree 1873 XI BL.R. 129 and Tekait v. Basanta 1901 ILR 28 Cal. 751. The husband is bound to live with his wife and to maintain her.

The husband is the lawful guardian of his minor wife and is entitled to require her to live with him, however young she may be, unless there is a Custom enabling the wife to live with her parents until she has arrived at Puberty.-Vide Arumuga v. Viraraghava 1901 ILR 24 Mad. 255. As soon as the wife is mature, her home is necessarily in her husband''s house. - Vide Kondal Rayal v. Ranganayaki 1923 ILR 46 Mad. 791 and Dadaji v. Rukma Rai 1886 ILR 10 Bom. 301. He is bound to maintain her in his house while she is willing to reside with him and discharge her duties. If she quits him of her own accord, either without cause or on account of such ordinary quarrels as are incidental to married life in general, she can set up no claim to separate maintenance. - Vide Bommadevara Raganna v. Bommdevara raja (1928) 55 M.L.J. 242 : AIR 1928 P.C. 187. Kullyanessuree v. Dwarakanath, 6 W.R. 116. Sidlingappa v. Sidava 1878 ILR 2 Bom. 634 and Surampalli Bangsramma v. Surampalli Brambaze 1908 ILR 31 Mad. 388.

A wife who leaves her home for purposes of unchastity, and persists in following a vicious course of life, cannot claim to be maintained, or to be taken back. - Vide Kandasami v. Murugammal, 1896 ILR 19 Mad. 6. Debi Saran Shukul v. Daulata Shuklain, 1917 ILR 39 All. 234; Subbayya v. Bhawane, 1914 24 I.C 390 and Jeeva Ammal Vs. Ranganatha Mudaliar, .

A wife who has sued for maintenance on the ground that she was a chaste woman and that she has left her husband owing to his misconduct, is not entitled, when the husband proves her vicious ''course of life, to claim maintenance on the ground that the husband should also prove that she was living an immoral life when she filed the suit.- Vide Kuppammal v. Thangamuthu Pandaram 1944 I.M.L.J. 327 : 57 L.W. 254. But it was held in Ananthanarayana v. Sharadamma 1944 49 Mys. H.C.R. 235. that if the facts found are that she was guilty of a single act of infidelity but that subsequently she has maintained a pure and unsullied life for twenty years before suit, she is entitled to starving maintenance from her husband.

Though, strictly saying, the principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance are not applicable to the cases u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the principles of Hindu Law can be borne in mind in order to appreciate the facts of the case if the parties to the petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are Hindus. The object of the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. This object is achieved by directing provisions of lodging, food and clothing to the wife, the children who are minors or the parents, as the case may be. However, there are two conditions. The first is that the person who has neglected to look after anyone of the categories of the persons concerned, as noticed above, must have means to do so and secondly, the wife, minor children or the parents must be unable to maintain themselves. The expression ''means'' does not signify only visible means such as, real property or definite employment and if a man is healthy and able-bodied, he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife, child, etc.

In the instant case before us, the main contention raised by the Respondent, revision Petitioner herein is relating to the circumstance said to have taken place in the house of the Respondent at Uthamasola-mangalam on the night of 5th April, 1980 when the Petitioner (Respondent herein) was remaining alone. It is the case of the Respondent, revision Petitioner herein, that the wife had behaved in an improper manner with one Ramanathan, who is aged about 25 years, and as such, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the husband. Let us now consider whether the said allegation made by the revision Petitioner herein against the Respondent herein had been proved by him. x x x x

[The discussion of the facts and the evidence is omitted-Ed.]

The evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, and the wound certificate Ex.P7 clearly show that the Petitioner had been violently attacked by the Respondent and his relatives. R.W.3, the Respondent, has admitted in his cross-examination that when himself and his father were enquired by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, P.W.3 Venkataramani and Narayanan, the brothers of the Petitioner as well as Aiyasami Iyer, the Petitioner''s sister''s husband, were present in the Police Station. R.W.3 has also admitted that they came to his house prior to the said enquiry. They were abused and turned out of the house. Thereafter, the Petitioner was beaten indiscriminately and sent put of the house. We find that the evidence given to this effect by P.W.1 is cogent, convincing and trustworthy. The Petitioner has proved by adequate and acceptable evidence that she had been neglected to be maintained by the Respondent.

It is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that she has studied upto VIII Std., and that she does not own any property so as to maintain herself. It is further stated that she has no income of her own. These statements are not controverted by the Respondent. Thus, we find that the Petitioner has proved that she is unable to maintain herself.

The Respondent has stated that he is employed as a Fitter(sic) in the workshop of the Engineering College attached to the Anna-malai University. He has not stated anything in his counter or in his evidence regarding the monthly salary he is getting. The Petitioner has stated in her petition that the Respondent is getting monthly salary of Rs. 350 in the said avocation. In the written argument submitted before the lower court, this aspect regarding the monthly salary has been admitted by the Respondent.

The Respondent had stated that the 31/2 Kanis of land at Uthamasolamangalam and 3 Kanis of land at Pinnathur were sold by him for discharging the debts. No document had been filed before the lower court in support of these allegations. It is not disputed that the Respondent, his parents and brothers are all living together as joint family. It is also seen from the contents of Exs.P3, P4 and P5 that the family of the Respondent owns other properties also So, the lower Court is perfectly correct in holding that the Respondent has sufficient means to pay maintenance to the Petitioner. However, I am of opinion that the monthly maintenance of Rs. 250 awarded by the lower Court is excessive taking into consideration the poor income the Respondent is getting by way of monthly salary as a Fitter. In these circumstances, if the quantum of maintenance is reduced and fixed at Rs. 200 per mensem, it would be certainly in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the monthly maintenance is fixed at Rs. 200.

In the result, the quantum of maintenance of Rs. 250 awarded by the lower Court is modified and the monthly maintenance is fixed at Rs. 200. In other words ,the Respondent (husband) will pay maintenance to the Petitioner (wife) at the rate of Rs. 200 per mensem from 16th May, 1981, the date of the application. Apart from this modification, in other respects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No costs.