R. Rajasekaran vs Seethalakshmi 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 Tindivanam, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 marriage to

the Petitioner Rajasekaran. The Petitioner was given various sreedhana 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

born 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 panchayatdars, and

relatives the Petitioner/husband and his parents were repeatedly requested to take the Respondents 1 and 2 However the Petitioner/husband was

not inclined to take them back. Hence the wife/lst 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 die 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 P.W.1 and R.W.1 respectively. On behalf of the wife, Exs. Pl to P4 were marked and on the

side of husband, Exs. R1 to R15 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.

Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner 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 Code of Criminal Procedure the 1st Respondent/wife did not mention that she is unable to

maintain herself. On these 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 at the 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 reasoning 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.