Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1884 (MAD)

B. Sabarivasan v. Sumathy & Another

2007-06-22

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2007
Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the order passed in M.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1,Pollachi. The respondent/husband in M.C.No.9 of 2003 is the revision petitioner herein. 2. M.C.No. 9 of 2003 was filed by the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/-per mensum to each of the petitioners. 3. According to the petitioner/1st respondent herein, the marriage between the petitioner/wife in M.C.No.9 of 2003 and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 211. 2000. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife and lived happily for only two months. Afterwards, the case of the wife/petitioner in M.C.No.9 of 2003 is that the husband/respondent in M.C.No.9 of 2003 began to ill treat her and compelled her to bring a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents as additional dowry. The marriage was consummated and on 211. 2001, the first respondent/petitioner in M.C.No.9 of 2003 delivered a child viz., the second petitioner in M.C.NO.9 of 2003. The revision petitioner/husband never cared to come and see the second petitioner. But he has filed H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2002 for divorce. According to the wife/petitioner in M.C.No.9 of 2003, her husband/revision petitioner herein was drawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensum by indulging in a textile business and that he is also getting Rs. 10,000/- by way of interest from the hand loan advanced by him to various persons. 4. The revision petitioner/respondent in M.C.No.9 of 2003 in his counter would contend that the (wife)first petitioners parents are in affluent position and they are getting every month Rs.1,00,000/- by way of conducting chit and also getting Rs.700/- per mensum by way of rent from seven shops rented out by them. He would deny having received any dowry at the time of his marriage and that he is not having any job and his father is a retired man from Police Department and that only from the pension his father is getting the entire family is ekeing their livelihood. He would admit in the counter that the joint family of the wife/petitioner in M.C.No.9 of 2003 owning 25 acres of coconut garden, two tractors, one jeep and ten shops and that the wife/petitioners mother is also running a grocery shop and that the amount claimed towards maintenance by the petitioners is exorbitant. 5. He would admit in the counter that the joint family of the wife/petitioner in M.C.No.9 of 2003 owning 25 acres of coconut garden, two tractors, one jeep and ten shops and that the wife/petitioners mother is also running a grocery shop and that the amount claimed towards maintenance by the petitioners is exorbitant. 5. Before the trial Court, first petitioner/wife has examined herself as P.W.1 and wedding invitation as Ex P1 and the copy of the petition in H.M.O.P.NO.2 of 2002 filed by the respondent/revision petitioner herein as Ex P2 were marked. On the side of the respondent/husband R.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs R1 to R11 were marked. 6. After going through the oral and documentary evidence let in before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has ultimately accepted the case of the petitioners in M.C.NO.9 of 2003 /respondents herein and directed the husband/revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards maintenance for the first petitioner/wife and Rs.400/-towards maintenance for the second petitioner/minor child. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the respondent in M.C.No.9 of 2003 /husband has preferred this revision. 7. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the order of maintenance passed by the learned trial Judge in M.C.No.9 of 2003 in favour of the respondents herein is exorbitant as contended by the revision petitioner herein? 8. Heard Mr.R.Damodaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Vadivelmurugan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and considered their respective submissions. 9. The Point: The admitted fact is that the respondents herein viz., Sumathy and Minor Sivasakthi are the wife and minor child respectively of the revision petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that since the respondents herein have deserted the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance. 10. 9. The Point: The admitted fact is that the respondents herein viz., Sumathy and Minor Sivasakthi are the wife and minor child respectively of the revision petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that since the respondents herein have deserted the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance. 10. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents herein that the revision petitioner had lived with the first respondent only for two months, after the marriage and thereafter, he had failed to look after the welfare of the first respondent and the first respondent had met with dowry harassment at the hands of the revision petitioner herein and she was driven out of the matrimonial home in order to bring more dowry from her parents house and that even after the delivery of the second respondent herein, the revision petitioner never cared to see the new born. 11. It is seen from Ex P2 copy of the petition filed by the revision petitioner herein that the revision petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2002 against the first respondent herein for divorce and the same was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi (transferred from Sub Court, Hosur). To show his bonafides the revision petitioner is always ready and willing to live with the first respondent herein, he has not taken any steps for restitution of conjugal rights. To substantiate the contention that the parents of the first respondent herein are in affluent position, the revision petitioner has not filed any documents before the trial Court. This point has also been dealt with by the learned trial Judge at paragraph 7 of his order. 12. On the other hand, it is available on record that the revision petitioner herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.177/2003 before the Sub Court, Pollachi claiming compensation in an accident case, he has admitted there in his salary as Rs3,000/-per mensum. Under such circumstances, the contention of the revision petitioner that he is depending upon only on the pension of his father who is a retired employee of the police department cannot be sustainable. Till her remarriage, the first respondent herein is entitled to get her alimony from the revision petitioner herein. 13. The conduct of the revision petitioner is also to be taken note of. Till her remarriage, the first respondent herein is entitled to get her alimony from the revision petitioner herein. 13. The conduct of the revision petitioner is also to be taken note of. At the time of filing of this revision, this Court has ordered him to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards arrears of maintenance which he has paid. But on 6. 2007 in this revision, it was represented on behalf of the respondents herein that the arrears of maintenance still due from the revision petitioner comes to Rs.30,000/-. Taking into consideration of the plight of the respondents, this Court has directed the revision petitioner herein to deposit another sum of Rs.10,000/- before the trial Court to the credit of M.C.No.9 of 2003 before 26. 2007. But the said order was admittedly not complied with by the revision petitioner. 14. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge in M.C.No.9 of 2003 awarding Rs.500/-towards maintenance of the first petitioner and Rs.400/- towards maintenance of the second petitioner. Taking in to consideration, the cost of living, it cannot be said that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court in favour of 1st and 2nd respondents herein is exorbitant. The point is answered accordingly. 15. In fine, the revision is dismissed with costs through out, confirming the order dated 12. 2004 in M.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.1203 of 2005 is also dismissed.