Velammal vs Sivan Perumal

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This Revision filed by the wife is directed against the order passed dated 20.12.1993 in Cri. Revision Petition

No. 138/92 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, setting aside the order of maintenance in M.C. No. 1/92, dated 28.8.1992.

The petitioner herein filed a petition for maintenance alleging that after the marriage, the respondent demanded more dowry and tortured her and

ultimately he drove her out and as such, she is unable to maintain herself and that she claims maintenance from her husband. However, this was

contested by the husband denying the said allegations. After enquiry, the learned Magistrate found mat the wife Velammal, the petitioner herein,

was entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month from me date of the petition dated 2.9.1991. This order was passed 01^28.8.1992.

Aggrieved over this order, the husband filed a revision before the Sessions Court in Cri. Revision Petition No. 138/92.

The only ground mat was urged before the Sessions Court was that he already filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Civil

Court and the same was pending and during the pendency of the said petition, me wife could not be liable to claim maintenance. Accepting the said

contention, the Sessions Court allowed the revision setting aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved over this,

the present revision has been resorted to by the wife.

This revision case has to be allowed on a short ground. In 1992 LW (Cri) 592, Balasundaram v. Santki, when this question came up for

consideration in this Court, this Court has elaborately considered and held that the pendency of any civil proceedings is not a bar to the

maintenance application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the wife against her husband. So, mere pendency of the application for

restitution of conjugal rights, may not or will not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance.

The only question that arose before the Trial Court was whether the wife was entitled to maintenance on the ground that she was unable to

maintain herself. For that, she has to prove that she is the legally wedded wife and that she is unable to maintain herself. As per the order of the

lower Court, various materials were produced before Court to prove those ingredients. As such, I feel that the order of the learned Magistrate is

correct and valid in law. In view of the above reasoning, the order of the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside. I further hold that the petitioner

herein is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 350/- every month as per the order of the Magistrate dated 28.8.1992.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband requested this Court for modification to the effect that the order of maintenance to be given effect

to from the date of the order passed by the Magistrate dated 28.8.1992 instead of the date of the application viz., 2.9.1991. It is also submitted

clear that the monthly income of the husband is roughly Rs. 800/- per month. So, interest of justice would be met by making an order modifying to

the effect that the respondent-husband is liable to pay maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to the petitioner-wife from the date of the order of the

learned Magistrate viz., 28.8.1992. With this observation, the Revision Case is allowed.