ORDER This is a criminal revision case filed by Natarajan, petitioner herein, against the order dated 9-11-1981 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 16-5-1981, the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner Saraswathi, the respondent herein, is the wife of the revision petitioner herein. 2. In this Criminal 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 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 5-2-1973, 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 ever-silver 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 earrings. 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. 3. 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 illtreat the petitioner. They also compelled the petitioner now and then to ask for money from her eldest brother Venkataramani. So, the respondent and his parents as well as his three brothers began to ridicule and illtreat 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 earrings. 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. 4. On 8-3-1979, 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 Chidambararam 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 illtreat 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 illtreat 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. They also took the petitioner along with them. But the respondent and his parents as well as his brothers continued to illtreat 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, ever silver 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 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. 5. When the respondent appeared before the lower court, the copy of the petition filed by the petitioner was granted to him. 6. 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 5-2-1973 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 10 sovereigns of jewels which the petitioner was wearing at the time of the marriage are still worn by her. The 10 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 spend 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 Hariharan were born to the petitioner and the respondent. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 Uthamasolamangalam village where the respondent is owning lands, a separate family was set up for the petitioner and the respondent. 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 Uthamasolamangalam 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 Vania 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 red-handed, 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. The occurrence took place on 5-4-1980. The said Venkataramani 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 petition for maintenance filed by the petitioner has to be dismissed. 10. 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 petition for maintenance filed by the petitioner has to be dismissed. 10. 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. He has stated in his evidence that it is not true that on 18-3-1979 Narayanan, the brother of the petitioner, Aiyaswami Iyer, husband of the sister of the petitioner, living at Sirkali, came to see her in the house of the respondent, and that at that time, both the respondent and his father and brothers insulted them and drove them out. It is also not true that the petitioner was kept inside the house and she was beaten. It is also not true that thereafter she had been forcibly pushed out from inside the house. It is true that a complaint had been given in the Chidambaram Town-Police Station to that effect. On the basis of the same, the Sub Inspector attached to that police station called him, his father as well as his brothers and enquired them. Before the Sub Inspector, both the petitioner as well as the respondent assured that they would set up a separate family. Accordingly, in the month of Avani, 1979, a separate family was set up by the petitioner and the respondent in Uthamasolamangalam. They were living there for about 5 or 6 months. On 5-4-1980, during night, R.W.3 stayed in the house of his father Sreenivasa Iyer situated in Periyar Street, Chidambaram. The petitioner alone was in Uthamasolamanagalam. On 6-4-1980 at about 8-00 A.M., R.W.2 Nayathan who is a farm servant at Uthamasolamangalam came to the respondent's father's house and told him that the petitioner and one Ramanathan had sexual intercourse on the night of 5-4-1980 in the house at Uthamasolamangalam. R.W.1 Subramaniam had asked R.W.2 to fetch the respondent in this regard. On 6-4-1980 at about 8-00 A.M., R.W.2 Nayathan who is a farm servant at Uthamasolamangalam came to the respondent's father's house and told him that the petitioner and one Ramanathan had sexual intercourse on the night of 5-4-1980 in the house at Uthamasolamangalam. R.W.1 Subramaniam had asked R.W.2 to fetch the respondent in this regard. So. R.W.3 (respondent) and his father Sreenivasa Iyer came to Uthamasolamangalam village at 9-30 A.M. R.W.1 was present there. He told them about what had happened. Thereafter, R.W.3 called the petitioner to a lonely place and asked about the same. The petitioner admitted that she had illicit connection with Ramanathan and she also told him that she would like to live with the said Ramanathan. When R.W.3 asked the petitioner to give the said matter in writing, she refused to do so. Thereafter, Rajappa (son of R.W.2) was asked to draft a hand-letter Ex.R.1 as written by the respondent and in the said hand-letter, the petitioner, R.W.1 and R.W.2 put their signatures. Thereafter, neither R.W.3 nor the members of his family informed about this to any one. On 6-4-1980, R.Ws.2 and 3 took the petitioner to Madras and left her in the house of Narayanan, the elder brother of the petitioner. Both the respondent and R.W.2 returned to Chidambaram. 11. R.W.3, the respondent herein, had admitted the following details in his cross-examination. When the Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station enquired him and his father in the said Police Station, the petitioner, her brothers Narayanan, Venkataramani, and Aiyasami Iyer, the husband of the petitioner's sister were present. All the three of them came to the house of the respondent prior to the said enquiry. R.W.3 did not know that a complaint was given by the petitioner to the Police stating the respondent and his family members beat the petitioner in their house. It is only three or four months thereafter, separate family was set up at Uthamasolamangalam. During that time, in the said Village, the respondent owned 3 1/2 ‘Kaanis’ of land in the said village and 3 ‘Kaanis’ of land at Pinnathur which is about 11/2 miles from that place. After the institution of the petition by the petitioner, the respondent had sold these lands and discharged the debts. The lands at Pinnathur, the extent of which is 3 Kaanis, were purchased by the respondent's grandfather in the name of the respondent. After the institution of the petition by the petitioner, the respondent had sold these lands and discharged the debts. The lands at Pinnathur, the extent of which is 3 Kaanis, were purchased by the respondent's grandfather in the name of the respondent. The father of the respondent was employed as a Karnam for 30 years. There is only one room in the said room. There is only one door available at the ‘vasal’ of the house. There is no window. The respondent is acquainted with Ramanathan for the past 12 years. R.W.1 and R.W.2 were working under the respondent's father for the past 10 or 12 years. Rajappa, the scribe of Ex.R-1 is aged about 25 or 26 years. He has studied upto V.Std. Ex.R-1, it is not mentioned as to the date on which it was written or the day on which it was written. In Ex.R.1, R.W.1 and R.W.2, the servants of the respondent's father have put their signatures on the reverse side. In Ex.R-1, it is not written that the petitioner would live with Ramanathan. No suit has been filed for divorce against the petitioner till to-day. With respect to this occurrence, Ramanathan was not called and enquired. There is enmity between the family of the respondent on the one hand and the family of Ramanathan on the other. The father of the respondent had filed O.S.No.116 of 1981 against Ramanathan in the court of the District Munsif, Chidambaram. In Ex.R-1, there is no specific mention that the occurrence was seen by any one, but it is mentioned therein that the offender was caught red-handed. 12. R.W.1 Subramaniam has stated in his evidence as follows: He is living in Uthamasolamangalam. According to him, the respondent owns 4 or 5 ‘Kaanis’ of land in the said village. R.W.1 is working in the fields belonging to the respondent and he was staying in the house of the respondent. The respondent and the petitioner were leading a family life for about two or three months in Uthamasolamangalam. During that time, the respondent used to start at 7.00 A.M. from his house and go to Annamalai Nagar. In the evening, he used to return to the house only at about 6.00 P.M. On the night of 5-4-1980, it was dark and there was also wind and rain. During that time, the respondent used to start at 7.00 A.M. from his house and go to Annamalai Nagar. In the evening, he used to return to the house only at about 6.00 P.M. On the night of 5-4-1980, it was dark and there was also wind and rain. R.W.1 had gone to the fields, and he came to the house of the respondent at about 9.00 P.M. At that time, the petitioner and Ramanathan, son of Samiappa Solayar, who is related to R.W.1 as his brother-in-law were remaining in a dark room. They were lying together. On seeing R.W.1, Ramanathan stood up and ran away. Ramanathan is aged about 25 years. When R.W.1 asked the petitioner as to whether she could do so she stated that she had committed a mistake and that it need not be revealed to others- R.W.1 informed the respondent at Chidambaram on 6-4-1980 through R.W.2 about the same. At 9.00 A.M., the respondent and his father came to Uthamasolamangalam. When the respondent questioned the petitioner about the occurrence, she admitted that she had committed a mistake. The respondent wrote a statement and obtained the signature of the petitioner in it. R.Ws.1 and 2 attested the said document. The said statement is Ex.R.1. Thereafter, R.W.1 and the respondent took the petitioner to the house of Narayanan, elder brother of the petitioner, at Madras. There also the petitioner admitted her fault before Narayanan. At that time, Narayanan said that she had been married to the respondent and as such the respondent has to look after her and it was not proper for him to shift the burden on his shoulders. Thereafter, the respondent stated that the matter could be looked into after four or five days. Then R.W.1 and R.W.2 returned to Chidambaram. 13. R.W.2 Nayathan has stated in his evidence as follows - He is residing at Uthamasolamangalam. He is working in the field of the respondent for the past eight years and also working as a watchman in the coconut thope of the respondent. About three years prior to the trial before, the lower court, the respondent and the petitioner set up a separate family at Uthamasolamangalam. They were leading family life for about a year. During one night, R.W.2 asked R.W.1 to guard the garden of the respondent and left for taking food. About three years prior to the trial before, the lower court, the respondent and the petitioner set up a separate family at Uthamasolamangalam. They were leading family life for about a year. During one night, R.W.2 asked R.W.1 to guard the garden of the respondent and left for taking food. When he was returning, he saw a man coming in the opposite direction. When R.W.1 called him, the said person did not stop, when R.W.2 called him, the said person did not stop, when R.W.2 came and asked R.W.1 R.W.2 informed him that the petitioner and the said person were together. On the next day, R.W.2 came to Chidambaram and informed about the same to the respondent and his father. They came to the village and enquired. Thereafter, they asked Rajappa son of R.W.2 to write a chit. In the said chit, R.W.1 and R.W.2 put their signatures. Thereafter, all of them came to Chidambaram. 14. Thereafter, the petitioner and three witnesses on her behalf were examined as P.W. 1 to P.W.4 before the lower Court. 15. P.W.1 Saraswathi, the petitioner, has stated in her evidence apart from what she had stated in her petition, as follows: On 8-3-1979, Narayanan, her brother, and Aiyasami Iyer, her sister's husband, came to see her at Chidambaram. At that time, the respondent, her father-in-law and brothers-in-law indiscriminately abused them and drove them out of the house. When they were standing outside, . P.W.1 was beaten inside the house by her father-in-law, the respondent and her brothers-in-law, with firewood. Thereafter, she was also driven out of the house. At that time, the said Narayanan and Aiyasami Iyer took her straight to Vaitheeswaran koil. On the next day, Narayanan came to Chidambaram and gave a complaint in the police station. P.W.1 was also present at the Police Station when the complaint was given. P.W.3 Venkataramani her elder brother, also came to the Police station at that time. The Sub Inspector sent her for treatment to the Chidambaram Government Hospital. The Assistant Medical Officer (P.W.4) treated her and issued Ex.P.7 wound certificate. The Sub Inspector also enquired the respondent, his father and his brothers. At that time, they gave an undertaking in writing that they would not ill-treat her and that she would be treated properly and that they will lead a family life. The Assistant Medical Officer (P.W.4) treated her and issued Ex.P.7 wound certificate. The Sub Inspector also enquired the respondent, his father and his brothers. At that time, they gave an undertaking in writing that they would not ill-treat her and that she would be treated properly and that they will lead a family life. On that day, Aiyasam Iyer took her to Vaitheeswaran Koil and gave her treatment for about a week. Thereafter, she was brought and left in the house of the respondent. Bearing in mind that a complaint was given to the Police against them, the respondent, his parents and his brothers, within a few days, began ill-treating the petitioner cruelly once again. She was also driven out of the house. The children of the petitioner were kept by the respondent with him. P.W.1 borrowed money from persons known to her and went to Vaitheeswaran Koil. It is not true to say that in 1979, the petitioner and the respondent were living in Uthamasolamangalam separately. It is not also true that there had been development of illicit intimacy between the petitioner and one Ramanathan. It is totally false that there had been sexual relationship between the petitioner and the said Ramanathan, and that it was seen by R.W.1. It is equally false to say that she admitted the same and gave the statement under Ex.R-1. According to her, the contents of Ex.R-1 are totally false. She was threatened and cruelly treated and thereafter at Chidambaram at the house of the respondent, the respondent's father obtained the signatures of the petitioner in three blank papers. 16. P.W.1 has also stated in her cross-examination that Ex.R-2 is the invitation for her marriage and that the name of her father Sundaresa Iyer is mentioned in the said invitation. Even before her marriage, her father left the house due to mental derangement. 17. P.W.2 Adhimoola Nadar has stated in his evidence as follows: He is residing at Uthamasolamangalam for the past 50 years. He is acquainted with the respondent as well as his father Sreenivasa Iyer. He is also acquainted with the petitioner. According to this witness, the land at Uthamasolamangalam belonging to the respondent was sold about five months before the trial in the lower court to a person at Kodippallam. The petitioner and the respondent did not live at Uthamasolamangalam by setting up a separate family. He is also acquainted with the petitioner. According to this witness, the land at Uthamasolamangalam belonging to the respondent was sold about five months before the trial in the lower court to a person at Kodippallam. The petitioner and the respondent did not live at Uthamasolamangalam by setting up a separate family. The respondent does not own any house at Uthamasolamangalam. There is only a tin-shed in the coconut-thope belonging to the respondent. P.W.2 is living in a hut adjacent to the same. Ramanathan son of Samiappa Solagar is not living at Uthamsolamangalam and he is living only at Chidambaram. R.W.3 is not living at Uthamasolamangalam. Uthamasolamangalam is only the village in which the father-in-law of R.W.3 is living. 18. P.W.3 Venkataramani has stated in his evidence as follows: He is living at No.28, Big Street, Triplicane Madras. The petitioner is his younger sister. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was celebrated on 5-2-1973 at Kumbakonam. During that time, P.W.3 Venkataramani gave to the petitioner jewels worth 10 sovereigns as well as silver, ever silver and brass vessels as ‘Sreedhana’. He spent about Rs.10, 000 for the marriage. During the marriage negotiations, instead of dowry, the father of the respondent asked on behalf of his son that Rs.3, 500 worth of diamond earnings should be purchased and given to the petitioner. Since there was no means to purchase the diamond ear-rings, it was assured that the jewel would be given subsequently and an advance of Rs.500 was given during the time of betrothel. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were living along with the parents, brothers and sisters of the respondent in a house at Lalkhan Street at Chidambaram. About five or six months after the marriage, the petitioner was sent to their house. Within a few days, the respondent's father wrote that the balance of Rs.3, 000 towards the diamond ear-rings had to be sent along with the petitioner failing which the petitioner could be retained in her house itself. So, a sum of Rs.1, 000 was gathered, and on 4-9-1973 through a draft of Bank of India, the said sum had been sent to the father of the respondent Ex.P-1 is the receipt relating to the same. The balance of Rs.2, 000 was given to the father of the respondent during the time of the marriage of Balakrishnan, the younger brother of the respondent. The balance of Rs.2, 000 was given to the father of the respondent during the time of the marriage of Balakrishnan, the younger brother of the respondent. Even after the marriage, the said Balakrishnan used to write letters complaining against the petitioner. He used to write that the petitioner was not living amicably with the members of the family of her father-in-law and that she was talkative. The petitioner used to be sent very often to the house of her elder sister at Vaitheeswaran Koil. Ex.R.-2 is the letter written by the respondent in the year 1973 that for the Varalakshmi Nonbu, a silk saree for the petitioner and a silk dhothi for her husband were to be purchased. Intimation to that effect was given to the elder sister of the petitioner. On 8-3-1973, Narayanan, the younger brother of P.W.1, and Aiyasami Iyer, the petitioner's sister's husband, went to the house of the respondent to see the petitioner. During that time, the respondent and his parents and brothers abused them. The petitioner was also beaten. With respect to the same, a complaint was given in the Chidambaram Town Police Station on the next day. On 10-3-1979 when she came to Chidambaram, in the police station, the Sub Inspector enquired the respondent and his father Sreenivasa Iyer. A written undertaking was given by the respondent that she would be treated properly. On account of the same, the complaint given by Narayanan, the brother of the petitioner, was withdrawn. It is false to state that the respondent had set up a separate family with the petitioner at Uthamasolamangalam in the month or Avani, 1979 and during that time on a night she had sexual relationship with one Ramanathan, that somebody saw the same, and that she had admitted the same and left the house of the respondent. It is only the respondent and his parents that ill-treated the petitioner and drove her out of their house. Ex.P.3 dated 8-11-1972 is the letter written to her by Sreenivasa Iyer (father-in-law of the petitioner). In the said letter, he had written that in Nasivahthangudi village, 4 velis and 20 kaanis of land were purchased in the name of the respondent. Ex.P.4 dated, 1-11-1972 is the letter written to her by Balakrishnan, the brother of the respondent. In the said letter also, it is mentioned that they own 20 kaanis of land. In the said letter, he had written that in Nasivahthangudi village, 4 velis and 20 kaanis of land were purchased in the name of the respondent. Ex.P.4 dated, 1-11-1972 is the letter written to her by Balakrishnan, the brother of the respondent. In the said letter also, it is mentioned that they own 20 kaanis of land. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of the sale deed by the respondent for the purchase of land through Aiyasami Iyer, the husband of the petitioner's sister. By the said document, 60 cents of land in Survey No.199/2 and 54 cents of land in Survey No.202/3 at Kothangudi village and 8 cents of Land in Survey No.35/7 in Uthamasolamangalam were purchased. Ex.P.6 is the letter written by Sreenivasa Iyer, the father of the respondent on 1-9-1973 demanding the balance of Rs.3, 000 pointing out that in spite of the fact that 7 months time had elapsed since the undertaking, no amount had been paid on behalf of the petitioner and that if the said amount is not paid to him, the petitioner need not be brought to the house. 19. P.W.4, Dr. A. Ponnammal, G.A.S. attached to the Government Hospital, Chidambaram, has stated in her evidence that on 10-3-1979 at 6-50 P.M., she examined P.W.1 for injuries said to have been caused on 8-3-1979 at about 3.00 P.M. and to be due to assault with stick by 3 known persons. She found on P.W.1 the following injuries: 1. A contusion 2“X 2” on the left side of buttocks, blue in colour. 2. An abrasion 2 × 2 cms. on the radial tubioiety of left wrist. 3. A contusion 1“X 1” on the upper 3rd of back of left thigh, blue in colour. 4. An abrasion 1 × 1 cms. on the lateral side of lower 3rd of left fore-arm. 5. Patient complained of pain below the left scapula. 6. Complained of pain on the whole of left thigh, tenderness present. According to P.W.4, the injuries were simple in nature and that they could have been caused at the time and in the manner alleged. Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate issued by her. 20. 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 5-2-1973. They lived together as husband and wife till 8-3-1979. Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate issued by her. 20. 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 5-2-1973. They lived together as husband and wife till 8-3-1979. It is so admitted by the respondent. It is also admitted that as per the contention of the petitioner subsequent to 8-3-1979, and as per the contention of the respondent from 5-4-1980, 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 8-3-1979, 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. 21. The lower court framed the following points for consideration. 1. Has the respondent wilfully neglected to maintain his wife, the petitioner? 2. Is the petitioner unable to maintain herself? 3. Has the respondent got sufficient means to pay monthly maintenance for his wife, the petitioner herein, and 4. If so, what is the monthly maintenance that may be awarded to the petitioner? 22. 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 Ramanathan is only a false story invented by the respondent in order to escape from the liability to pay maintenance to the petitioner herein under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 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. 23. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower court, the respondent has come forward with this revision case. Mr. 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. 23. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower court, the respondent has come forward with this revision case. Mr. 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. 24. The point for consideration in this Revision is, whether there is any. infirmity in the order under revision? 25. 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. 26. 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 status 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 Shastras, 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. 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 wordly purposes but mainly for the fulfilment of these religious duties (Dharma Praja Santatyartham) with the association of a wife who is therefore called a Dharma Patni. 27. 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: 28. 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 degraded (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. 29. In India, it is provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, (Act 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 refusel 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. 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. 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 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. 30. In the present Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974 ), under section 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, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being 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”. 31. The right of a Hindu wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or estate 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. 32. Manu, cited in Srikrishna's commentary on the Dayabhagya declares: “The father, the mother, the Guru (an elderly relation worthy of respect), a wife, an off spring, poor dependents, 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 declare. “The aged mother and father, the chaste wife, and an infant child must be maintained even by doing a 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 out-cassed, 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. 33. 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. 33. 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 non-compliance 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 dependence. 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 district text “a second husband of a good woman is no where 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.” 34. 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. 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 Sitaram v. Aheeree (1873) 11 Beng.L.R. 129 and Tekait v. Basanta Tekait v. Basanta (1901) I.L.R.28 Cal.751. The husband is bound to live with his wife and to maintain her. 35. 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 Arumuga v. Viraraghava (1901) I.L.R. 24 Mad. 255:11 MLJ. 69. As soon as the wife is mature, her home is necessarily in her husband's house.-Vide Kondal Rayal v. Ranganayaki Kondal Rayal v. Ranganayaki (1923) I.L.R. 46 Mad. 791:A.I.R. 1924 Mad 49:45 MLJ. 186 and Dadaji v. Rukma Bai Dadaji v. Rukma Bai (1886) I.L.R.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. Bommadevara Raja Bommadevara Raganna v. Bommadevara Raja (1928) 55 MLJ. 242:(A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 187), Kullyanessuree and Surampalli Bangbramma v. Surampalli Brambaze Surampalli Bangbramma v. Surampalli Brambaze (1908) I.L.R. 31 Mad. 338:19 MLJ. 254. 36. 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 Kandasami v. Murugammal (1896) I.L.R. 19 Mad.6, Debi Saran Shukul. 37. 338:19 MLJ. 254. 36. 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 Kandasami v. Murugammal (1896) I.L.R. 19 Mad.6, Debi Saran Shukul. 37. 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 Kuppammal v. Thangamuthu Pandaram (1944) 1 MLJ. 327:A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 426. But it was held in Ananthanarayana v. Sharadamma 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 pue and unsullied life for twenty years before suit, she is entitled to starving maintenance from her husband. 38. Though, strictly saying, the principles of Hindu Law regarding maintenance are not applicable to the cases under section 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 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are Hindus. The object of the provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 any one 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. 39. 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. 39. 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 Uthamasolamangalam on the night of 5-4-1980 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 had been proved by him. The respondent (husband) has stated before the Police when an enquiry was made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station on the complaint given by the elder brother of the petitioner had agreed to set up a family. According to him, in the month of Avani, 1979 they began to live in a small house belonging to the respondent at Uthamasolamangalam. There is only one room in it. In cross-examination, the respondent had stated that there is a tube light in the said room. R.W.1 Subramaniam has stated in his cross-examination, that there is only one room in the respondent's house at Uthamasolamangalam, but would state that there was no tube light in the said room. He has stated that a tube light has been provided only outside the said house. P.W.2 Adhimoola Nadar has stated that the respondent has got ho house of his own at Uthamasolamangalam and that there is only a tin-shed in the coconut thope belonging to the respondent. It is relevent to note that no document or village register was produced before the lower court to prove that the respondent owns a house at Uthamasolamangalam. Thus, we find that there is a doubt arising even with respect to the respondent owning a house at Uthamasolamangalam. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner's contention is that the petitioner and the respondent did not live in Uthamasolamangalam at all. Thus, we find that there is a doubt arising even with respect to the respondent owning a house at Uthamasolamangalam. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner's contention is that the petitioner and the respondent did not live in Uthamasolamangalam at all. From the counter filed by the respondent as well as the evidence of R.W.3, it is seen that the petitioner and the respondent were living at Uthamasolamangalam from the month of Avani, 1979 till 5-4-1980. But R.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that only after three months from the date of the complaint given in the police by Narayanan, brother of the petitioner, namely, 9-3-19 79, they began to live at Uthamasolamangalam. R.W.1 Subramaniam has stated that from the month of June, 1979 the petitioner and the respondent lived at Uthamasolamangalam. It is also in evidence that from the month of Avani, 1980 for about two or three months, the petitioner and respondent were living in the said village. R.W.2 Nayathan has stated in his evidence that the petitioner and the respondent lived for about a year at Uthamasolamangalam about three months prior to himself giving evidence in the lower court. In view of the existence of contradictory versions relating to the period of their stay at Uthamasolamangalam, it is doubtful whether they were living at Uthamasolamangalam at all during the relevant time as alleged by the respondent-As already stated, the case of the petitioner is that they never lived together at Uthamasolamangalam. 40. Now let us discuss the evidence regarding the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is stated that the alleged occurrence took place in the house of the respondent at Uthamasolamangalam on the night of 5-4-1980. In the counter, it is also stated that one of the servants had seen the said moral act of the petitioner with Ramanathan on 5-4-1980. It is not specifically mentioned in the counter whether the alleged misconduct took place during night or day. In the counter, the name of the alleged farm servant is not also mentioned. It is also not specifically stated that R.W.1 saw the occurrence. In the counter the names of the witnesses are not specifically mentioned. It is not specifically mentioned in the counter whether the alleged misconduct took place during night or day. In the counter, the name of the alleged farm servant is not also mentioned. It is also not specifically stated that R.W.1 saw the occurrence. In the counter the names of the witnesses are not specifically mentioned. R.W.1 has stated in his evidence that on 5-4-19.80, he was returning to the house of the respondent after having gone to fields at about 9.00 P.M. and that at that time it was dark and that it was also raining. The wind was also blowing. During that time, the petitioner and Ramanathan were lying together in a dark room. On seeing R.W.1 Ramanathan stood up and ran out. During that time, when R.W.1 questioned the petitioner regarding the same, the petitioner told him that a mistake had occurred and that he need not reveal the same to others. R.W.1 was working for number of years in the house of the respondent. So, out of gratitude, he told R.W.3 about the same. On the next day, namely, 6-4-1980 at about 6.00 A.M. through R.W.2. In his cross-examination, R.W.1 has stated that at about 9.00 P.M., when he had come, he found a chimney lamp was burning inside the house of the respondent which had only one room. In another portion of his evidence, he states that there was no light burning in the said room. He has stated that he went inside the house and switched on the tube light which was provided outside the house. He has stated that only with the help of the tube light, he saw the petitioner and Ramanathan lying together. R.W.2 has stated in his evidence that on a night he kept R.W.1 for guarding the place and went for food, and when he returned to the respondent's house he saw a person coming on the opposite direction. Though he shouted, that person did not stop. When R.W.2 came and questioned R.W.1, R.W.1 told him that the said person and the petitioner were found together inside the house. On the next morning, he came to Chidambaram and informed the respondent about the same. R.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that there was a chimney lamp in the room. Thereafter he has stated that there was no light inside room. On the next morning, he came to Chidambaram and informed the respondent about the same. R.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that there was a chimney lamp in the room. Thereafter he has stated that there was no light inside room. Again he said that he went inside the house and switched on the light which was provided outside the house. Thus, he has given contradictory statements in his evidence regarding the alleged occurrence seen by him. This creates reasonable doubt. These contradictions show that reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of R.W.1. From the evidence of R.W.2, it is seen that R.W.1 had not told him as to who was lying with the petitioner. If really R.W.1 had seen both the petitioner and the said Ramanathan together, he would have certainly told R.W.2 that it was Ramanathan who was lying with the petitioner. 41. After the alleged occurrence, it is stated that the petitioner had given a letter to the respondent. R.W.3 has stated in his evidence that the said letter is Ex. R.1, and that before the said letter was written, when the petitioner was questioned by the respondent after taking her to a lonely place, she admitted the alleged occurrence and told him that she would live with the said Ramanathan. When the petitioner was asked to give a letter to that effect, she refused to do so. Then, Rajappa (son of R.W.2) was asked to write the contents of Ex.R-1 and the signature of the petitioner was obtained in it. It is also stated that the signature of R.W.1 and R.W.2 were obtained in the said document. Now let us consider whether there is any truth in the plea put forward by the respondent. 42. First of all, there is no date mentioned in Ex.R-1. Secondly, it is not mentioned in the Ex.R-1 that on the night of 5-4-1980 inside the house of the respondent, the petitioner and Ramanathan had sexual intercourse or that at that time R.W.1 came there and saw the same. On the other hand, in Ex.R.1 it is only mentioned that there was a sexual intercourse and that the villagers caught hold of the persons red-handed on 5-4-1980. It is also mentioned in Ex.R.1 that the petitioner had stated that she would remain with Ramanathan. Thus we find that Ex.R.1 is not proved to be a true document. On the other hand, in Ex.R.1 it is only mentioned that there was a sexual intercourse and that the villagers caught hold of the persons red-handed on 5-4-1980. It is also mentioned in Ex.R.1 that the petitioner had stated that she would remain with Ramanathan. Thus we find that Ex.R.1 is not proved to be a true document. On the other hand, it is clearly seen that it is a subsequently prepared false document especially after a complaint was given on 9-3-1979 in the Chidambaram Town Police Station against the respondent and his father by Narayanan, the brother of the petitioner. 43. It is also relevant to note that the alleged scribe of Ex.R-1, namely, Rajappa had not been examined as a witness. That apart, R.W.1 in his chief-examination and in his cross- examination, had stated that the contents of Ex.R-1 were written by the respondent. He had also stated that by sitting outside the house, the respondent wrote the said document. R.W.2 in his evidence in chief as well as in his cross-examination has stated that Ex.R-1 was written by his son Rajappa inside the house and further said that by keeping the document on the table. It was reduced to writing. Thus we find vital contradictions in the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the coming into existence of Ex.R.1, and it is clear that Ex.R.1 is a fabricated and created document. R.W.3 has admitted in his cross-examination that Sreenivasa Iyer, father of the respondent, had filed a suit against the said Ramanathan in the court of the District Munsif at Chidambaram. Thus, there is substance in the contention that out of enmity, the respondent had falsely implicated Ramanathan with the petitioner. The lower court is perfectly correct in holding that the respondent had introduced the alleged circumstance in order to deprive the petitioner of her maintenance claim. 44. Now let us consider the evidence available on record regarding the negligence on the part of the Respondent to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in her evidence that from the time of marriage, the respondent, his father and his brothers ill-treated her. Finally, on 8-3-1979, in the presence of Narayanan the elder brother of the petitioner and Aiyasami Iyer, the husband of the petitioner's sister, the petitioner was beaten and driven out of the house by the respondent, his father and brothers. Finally, on 8-3-1979, in the presence of Narayanan the elder brother of the petitioner and Aiyasami Iyer, the husband of the petitioner's sister, the petitioner was beaten and driven out of the house by the respondent, his father and brothers. Ex.P.6 is the letter written on 1-8-1973 by Sreenivasa Iyer, father of the respondent, to the petitioner's elder brother (R.W.3). In the said letter, it is written as follows: From this, it is seen that after the marriage, petitioner (wife) was sent to her brother's house and this is sufficient evidence to show that she had been most cruelly treated by her husband and his father within a few days after the marriage. 45. The evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, and the wound certificate Ex.P.7 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, brothers of the petitioner as well as Aiyasami Iyer, the petitioner's sister's husband, were present in the Police Station. R.W.1 has also admitted that they came to house prior to the said enquiry. They were abused and turned out of the house. Thereafter, the petitioner was beater indiscriminately and sent out 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. 46. 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. 47. The respondent has stated that he is employed as a Fitter in the workshop of the engineering College attached to the Annamalai 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 a monthly salary of Rs.350 in the said avocation. 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 a 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. 48. 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 Ex.P.3, P.4 and P.5 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. 49. 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 16-5-1981, the date of the application. Apart from this modification, in other respects, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No costs. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.