Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2425 (MAD)

Rani & Another v. M. Sundaramoorthy

2009-07-16

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 06.09.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai in CMP No.448 of 2004 in M.C.No.3 of 1993, this criminal revision is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: Indubitably and indisputably, the respondent is the husband of the first revision petitioner and father of the second revision petitioner. Originally the revision petitioners filed M.C.No.3 of 1993 claiming maintenance as against the respondent, whereupon the Court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.250/- and Rs.100/-per month payable by the respondent herein in favour of each of the petitioners respectively. C.M.P.No.448 of 2004 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed for enhancing the maintenance. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs.500/-per month as maintenance in favour of each of the revision petitioners payable by the respondent. .3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the meagre increased awarded by the Court, the revision petitioners herein filed the revision petition for enhancing the amounts awarded by the learned Magistrate on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: .Ignoring the fact that the gross monthly salary of the respondent is Rs.8,819/-as evidenced by Ex.P2, simply the learned Magistrate awarded meagre enhancement and thereby, deprived the right of the revision petitioners to get adequate succor from the respondent. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in passing the order dated 06.09.2006 by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the revisions petitioners would set forth and advance his argument to the effect that in this present day cost of living, the wife and the daughter of a Government accountant cannot lead a decent life with the meagre maintenance of Rs.500/-per month in favour of each of them. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would by way of torpedoing and pulverising the argument as put forth on the side of the revision petitioners would submit that the respondent incurred huge loan for solemnising the marriage of his one other daughter and in connection with that, every month a sum of Rs.3,500/- is being deducted and as such, his take home pay was only Rs.3,854/-and with that he has to meet his own commitments. .6. .6. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to verify as to what was the salary of the respondent at the relevant time. A portion of Ex.P2 is extracted here under for ready reference and discussion: .TAMIL 7. From the above extract, it is quite clear that his gross salary during the month of January 2006 was Rs.8,819/-. Towards GPF, he was contributing a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It is at once understandable that for a man whose basic salary is Rs.4,800/-, he was not expected to contribute compulsorily a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards GPF. Be that as it may, towards GPF loan, he was contributing a sum of Rs.3,200/-. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent would expound and explain that the respondent was constrained to avail GPF to solemnise the marriage of his one other daughter and in that connection alone, that amount was deducted from his salary every month. Under item 7 referred to supra, he was contributing a sum of Rs.615/-, which cannot be treated as compulsory deduction also. As such, if accordingly worked out, even though his take home pay is shown as Rs.3,854/-, in stricto senso, it should be construed that his monthly disposable income would be around Rs.5,000/-. Here the learned Magistrate simply increased the sum of Rs.250/-per month to Rs.500/-per month and Rs.100/- per month to Rs.500/-per month in favour of the first and the second revision petitioners respectively without rhyme or reason or any logic behind it. The ratiocination which should be adhered to in awarding maintenance must be such that the amount awarded towards maintenance must enable the awardee to make both ends meet, to keep the wolf from the door and also to keep the pot boiling. But on the contrary, per month, a sum of Rs.500/-was awarded in favour of each of the revision petitioners which would not be sufficient to meet even half their needs and requirements. .9. Taking into account the cost of living which prevailed during the year 2006, a person would have required atleast a sum of Rs.30/-per day and accordingly if worked out, it comes to Rs.900/- per month. Towards medical expenses, travelling expenses and other unforeseen expenses, each one would have required atleast Rs.100/- per month. Ultimately, each ones requirement is quantified in a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Towards medical expenses, travelling expenses and other unforeseen expenses, each one would have required atleast Rs.100/- per month. Ultimately, each ones requirement is quantified in a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It is a trite proposition of law that a wife is entitled to live in commensurate with the status of her husband. Here his salary slip itself would evince and evidence that he is a clerical cadre person working in BDO Office and certainly his wife and child are entitled to lead a reasonably descent life and in such a case, the sum to be awarded in favour of each of them should be Rs.1,000/- per month. Accordingly, the order of the Magistrate is modified and the sum of Rs.500/-per month awarded in favour of each of the revision petitioners is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of each of them. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also appositely and appropriately, correctly and convincingly highlighted that as per the settled proposition of law, the enhancement awarded should take effect from the date of the filing of C.M.P.No.448 of 2004, and, not from the date of the order. The Magistrate committed error on that aspect also. Hence that also requires modification. The enhanced amount of Rs.1,000/-now ordered is payable from the date of the filing of CMP No.448 of 2004 by the respondent in favour of the revision petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is partly allowed.