Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1145 (MAD)

Unnamalai alias Vimala v. P. Subramanian

2004-09-09

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2004
ORDER: This reivision has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Sessions and Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2003, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.200 p.m. has been ordered to be paid by the respondent in favour of Unnamalai alias Vimala, the petitioner. 2. One Unnamalai alias Vimala alleging that she is the wife of P.Subramanian, filed M.P.No.3 of 2000, before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.500. 3. The said maintenance case was resisted by the husband Subramanian by saying that the petitioner Unnamalai has separated herself 30 years back and she is living separately and even before the marriage between Unnamalai and Subramanian, she was suffering from leprosay and suppressing the said disease, she was married to Subramanian and however, after some years, the said Unnamalai separated herself from Subramanian is living separately and further the said Unnamalai is having lands of 3 acres and 70 cents with pump set etc., and owning separate house and she is getting income of Rs.40,000 per year and that there was already civil suit between the parties and then through the village communal panchayat divorce was effected between the parties and for that, the said Subramanian has paid Rs.10,000 as lump sum only for maintenance etc., and that therefore, for the past so many years, nearly 20 years, there is no relationship between the parties as husband and wife. Further the said Subramanian is having two sons and two daughters and he is spending huge amount for the treatment of his aged mother and thereby the said Subramanian is not liable to pay any maintenance. 4. However, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, after enquiry, fixed the maintenance amount of Rs.500 and the said amount should be paid by Subramanian to the said Unnamalai. 5. As against the said order of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam, the said Subramanian has preferred revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2003 before the Additional District Sessions and Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam under Secs.397 read with 401, Crl.P.C. and on enquiry, the Additional District Sessions Judge has modified the order of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam by fixing maintenance amount as Rs.200 p.m. instead of Rs.500. Aggrieved against such modification of maintenance amount, this revision has been filed by the said Unnamalai alias Vimala under Secs.397 read with 401, Crl.P.C., on the ground that the Additional Sessions Court has failed to note that the petitioner Unnamalai has already sold the land and the petitioner Unnamalai is not in a position to maintain herself and that Rs.200 p.m. is not sufficient for maintaining a person like the petitioner in decent life and that therefore, the modification of Rs.500 to Rs.200 is not justified and thereby the order of the Additional District Sessions and Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam has to be set aside and the original order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam has to be restored. 6. I have gone through the entire evidence available for both sides, in the light of the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam as well as the Additional District Sessions Judge, in detail. 7. The fact remains that there is no dispute between the parties on the status of husband and wife. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent are living separately for the past so many years. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent Subramanian is having some other wife and adopted children with aged mother. The further fact remains that the petitioner as well as the respondent has no documents to show that the respondent is having sufficient means to pay maintenance of Rs.500 and there is also no document to show that the petitioner Unnamalai is having means to such an extent to maintain herself. At the same time it is an admitted fact that the petitioner -Unnamalai is having some means and owning house and there is no document to show that the petitioner Unnamalai has already sold the lands with pumpset etc. It is also an admitted fact that the husband Subramanian who is the retired teacher is receiving pension of Rs.1,200 p.m.. Further it is seen that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately for the past so many years and after lapse of everything only the petitioner has chosen to file maintenance petition claiming Rs.500 p.m. from the husband. It is also an admitted fact that the husband Subramanian who is the retired teacher is receiving pension of Rs.1,200 p.m.. Further it is seen that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately for the past so many years and after lapse of everything only the petitioner has chosen to file maintenance petition claiming Rs.500 p.m. from the husband. This conduct goes to show that the petitioner/wife was all having means to live separately without the aid of the husband, inasmuch as she happened to be the only daughter of her parents, who has immovable properties. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the Additional Sessions Judge, I am also of the view that the maintenance amount fixed as Rs.200 appears to be justified and there is no illegality or perversity in that order so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the same that too, when the Additional Sessions Judge has fixed that amount of Rs.200 after considering the evidence available for both sides and such circumstances to meet the expenses. Accordingly, this revision has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, Criminal Revision case is dismissed, by confirming the judgment dated 18.3.2003 made in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2003 passed by the Additional District Sessions and Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam.