R. Rajasekaran vs Seethalakhmi and another

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband Rajasekaran, against the order dated 24-6-1993, passed

in M.C. No. 11 of 1990, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindiyanam, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.

500/- p.m. and Rs. 400/- p.m. to the wife/1st respondent herein and to the minor son/2nd respondent herein respectively, from the date of petition

filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.

The short facts are necessary to decide the issue raised in this revision.

On 30-4-1984, the 1st respondent Seethalakshmi was given in marriage to the petitioner Rajasekaran. The petitioner was given to various

streedana articles like jewels etc. worth about Rs. 2 lakhs, at the time of marriage. After marriage they lived together at Salem. On 11-3-1988, the

2nd respondent Nivethan was born at Salem. After the birth of 2nd respondent, both the respondents were taken to the house of the father of 1st

respondent. The petitioner came to his father-in-law''s house to attend the naming ceremony of 2nd respondent and stayed there for two days.

Thereafter, he left assuring that he would come back soon to take 1st and 2nd respondents to his house. but later, he never turned up. Several

letters were written by 1st respondent/wife requesting the petitioner/husband to take her along with the child/2nd respondent. But there was no

response. In 1989, the petitioner/husband filed a petition for divorce in Sub-Court, Salem. The 1st respondent/wife filed another petition for

restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of these two petitions, through Panchayatars, and relatives the petition/husband and his parents

were repeatedly requested to take the respondents 1 and 2. However, the petitioner/husband did not incline to take them back. Hence, the

wife/1st respondent on her behalf and on behalf of the minor son/2nd respondent filed the petition, claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. each.

She also gave the details about the affluent situation of the husband/petitioner.

The petitioner/husband contested the maintenance petition by stating that the 1st respondent/wife was disobedient, arrogant and she was not co-

operating the petitioner/husband to lead a peaceful life and that she was asked to come back to join the husband, but she did not do so. He further

stated that the wife/1st respondent had on several occasions insulted the family of the petitioner/husband and so on 21-6-1989 he issued a notice

to her.

Both wife and husband have been examined as PW-1 and RW-1 respectively. On behalf of the wife, Exs. P1 to P4 were marked and on the

side of husband, Exs. P1 to R. 15 were marked. After elaborate consideration and appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the

learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition by directing the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance as stated above. Against this order, the

present revision has been presented in this Court by the petitioner/husband.

Heard learned counsel appearing on either side took me through the depositions and documents filed by respective parties and contended that

the respondents are not entitled to maintenance, since the 1st respondent herself deserted the matrimonial house without any cause or reason and

he further argued that in the petition presented u/s 125, Cr.P.C., the 1st respondent/wife did not mention that she is unable to maintain herself. On

these various aspects as submitted by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents was heard.

On considering the submissions made by respective parties and on perusing the records and judgment of the Court below, I feel that the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revision petitioner has no merit. It is an admitted fact that revision petitioner/husband filed the

petition for divorce in Sub-Court, Salem, whereas the wife/1st respondent has filed the petition only for restitution of conjugal rights. Moreover, the

Court below has made a detailed discussion, while passing the order in M.C. No. 11 of 1990, with regard to the proof of materials which

established that the wife was not able to maintain herself and that the wife/1st respondent was constrained to stay under the care and custody of

her father. The 1st respondent/wife has also proved that the petitioner/husband is earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, which fact was not denied by the

petitioner/husband in his counter. The Court below has also given sound reasonings for rejecting the plea taken belatedly by the petitioner/husband,

that he is earning only Rs. 1,500/-.

In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity, either in facts or in law, in the order passed by the Court below,

granting maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs. 400/- to the 2nd respondent/minor son from the date of petition filed before

trial Court. Therefore, the revision filed by the husband is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.