Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2783 (MAD)

Selvaraj v. R. Suseels & Another

2007-08-31

S.TAMILVANAN

body2007
Judgment :- There is no representation for the revision petitioner. Even in the previous hearing on 27.08.2007, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. Hence, the case was ordered to be posted under the caption “For Dismissal”. As there is no representation for the revision petitioner, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and also going through the Judgment of the Court below and also the evidence available on record, the order is passed on merits. 2. Even in the grounds of revision, it is not in dispute that the first respondent herein is the wife and the minor second respondent is the son of the revision petitioner. According to the first respondent, on 15.03.2000, the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized at Mohanur Sugar Factory, Annakalai Arangam hall as per Hindu Customs and Rituals and that the second respondent born through the said wedlock on 14.03.2001. The first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1 has deposed that her husband, the revision petitioner, after the birth of the minor, second respondent used to cause cruelty both physically and mentally and she was also driven out of her matrimonial home and therefore, she came out of the house and living with her parents with the minor, the second respondent. According to her, she could not maintain herself as well as the minor second respondent. She has further stated that the revision petitioner is having 10 acres of land and getting Rs.40,000/- per annum by way of agricultural income. 3. The trial court, considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has held that the income of the revision petitioner could be about Rs.4,500/- per month through his milk vending business and accordingly, the trial court has held that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to get maintenance of Rs.1,000/-each per month from the revision petitioner and accordingly, ordered. 4. On the above facts and circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below, which would warrant interference of this Court. In the result, the Criminal Revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The interim stay already granted in Crl.M.P.No.6524 of 2005, dated 22.08.2005 is vacated. 5. 4. On the above facts and circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below, which would warrant interference of this Court. In the result, the Criminal Revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The interim stay already granted in Crl.M.P.No.6524 of 2005, dated 22.08.2005 is vacated. 5. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the balance of arrears of maintenance, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order before the trial court and to pay the future maintenance, as per the order passed by the trial court.