Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1540 (MAD)

S. Poonambalam v. P. Ramalakshmi

2002-12-05

P.SATHASIVAM

body2002
ORDER Aggrieved by the order of Family Court, Madurai, dated 30.10.1998 made in M.C.O.P. No. 30 of 1994 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 in favour of the first respondent herein and Rs. 250 each in favour of respondents 2 and 3 herein, the petitioner has preferred the above revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 3. After taking me through the impugned order of the Family Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following two contentions: (1) the third respondent minor Tamilmani is not born to him, accordingly the direction for payment of maintenance by the Family Court cannot be sustained; (2) inasmuch as the first respondent herein-wife herself is getting income by working in a Match Factory, the amount granted to her cannot be sustained. 4. I am unable to accept both the contention for the following reasons. 5. In so far as the first contention disputing the birth of third respondent herein, namely, minor Tamilmani, though very same contention was raised before the Family Court in the absence of any material to substantiate the said plea, the Family Court has rejected his contention. Even before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the very same contention. In the light of the said contention, I have carefully perused the order of the Family Court, its conclusion as well as oral and documentary evidence let in before it. I am satisfied that except the plea of disputing paternity of the third respondent herein, the same has not been substantiated by placing acceptable evidence. In such circumstance, the conclusion of the Family Court cannot be found fault with. Further, it is settled in-law that in a proceeding under Sec. 125, Crl.P.C., there is no need to conduct a roving enquiry going into the minute details like a Civil Court. It is open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his claim. Depending on the order/decree of the Civil Court on the said aspect, it is always open to him to approach the Court below for modification of its earlier order. With the above observation, I reject the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Depending on the order/decree of the Civil Court on the said aspect, it is always open to him to approach the Court below for modification of its earlier order. With the above observation, I reject the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Coming to the second contention, though it is stated that wife is employed in a Match Factory, it was again except a bald statement, the same has not been substantiated by examining anyone of the person from the Match Factory wherein the wife is said to have been employed. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W. 1 that she is unable to maintain her son and not possessed of any property. In such circumstance, in the absence of any other material, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. Accordingly, there is no substance in the second contention. 7. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the revision and consequently, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 5342 of 2002 is also dismissed. S.S.-----Petition dismissed.