Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1938 (MAD)

P. Aruchamy v. S. Selvakumari & Another

2009-06-26

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- 1. Challenging and impugning the order dated 6. 2006, passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.107 of 2003, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondents herein filed the M.C.No.107 of 2003 as against the revision petitioner herein, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/-per month in favour of the first respondent-wife and a sum of Rs.600/-per month in favour of the second respondent herein payable by the revision petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:- Without appreciating the relevant facts and also without considering the hardship of the revision petitioner herein, simply such maintenance was awarded, warranting interference. 3. The point for consideration is as to whether the Magistrate was perverse in appreciating the evidence and in awarding maintenance in favour of the wife and the child of the revision petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who would reiterate the grounds of revision and highlight that the revision petitioner has to maintain his aged mother and also meet her medical expenses and as such, he could not pay the maintenance as awarded by the lower Court. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents herein would detail and delineate, express and expatiate, portray and parody the woes and the impecunious situation of the respondents. He would also point out that even with such meagre maintenance awarded, the respondents would not be able to keep the wolf from the door, keep the pot boiling, make both ends meet and also meet her creature comforts and as in the present day cost of living, each of them would be requiring at least a sum of Rs.3000/-per month. 6. It is a common or garden principle that a husband is bound to maintain his wife and his child. Here it has to be noted that challenging the quantum only this revision is focussed. Maintaining the aged mother, no doubt, might be the duty for the petitioner, but it is much more equally necessary to maintain his wife and child, who are reeling under penurious and impecunious circumstances. 7. Here it has to be noted that challenging the quantum only this revision is focussed. Maintaining the aged mother, no doubt, might be the duty for the petitioner, but it is much more equally necessary to maintain his wife and child, who are reeling under penurious and impecunious circumstances. 7. The perusal of Ex.R1-the salary slip of the revision petitioner would reveal that it was pertaining to July 2005 and his take home pay was Rs.3,651/-.However, his gross salary was Rs.6,267/-.It is a trite proposition of law that all deductions cannot be excluded in assessing the financial wherewithal of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance. Even then, taking into consideration the take home pay only, the lower Court simply, without going into all those details, highlighted supra, awarded a meagre maintenance of Rs.1000/- in favour of the first respondent and Rs.600/- in favour of the second respondent and in such a case there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the revision petitioner to file this revision. Hence, I could see no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.