Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2091 (MAD)

A. Abdul Gafoor v. N. Akhila

2012-04-26

C.S.KARNAN

body2012
ORDER The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case for her minor child and herself in C.C.No.217 of 2009, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent / husband married her 06.01.2005, in the presence of elders, as per Islamic Rights and Customs, at Coimbatore. At the time of marriage, the respondent's parents had given 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the revision petitioner / husband. Besides this, valuable sarees, cloths and furniture were given. The respondent further stated that out of wedlock, she gave birth to a female child on 08.11.2005, who is the second respondent herein. Immediately after marriage, the respondent led her marital life at the matrimonial home along with the revision petitioner herein. After a few days, the respondent/husband and his family members had demanded money as dowry. At the time of marriage negotiation, the revision petitioner and his parents had told the respondent and her parents that the revision petitioner was working at Saudi Arabia and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent came to know that the above statements was a false one and also came to know that the revision petitioner herein is earning only Rs.7,500/- per month. 2. The respondent further stated that she was unable to tolerate the ill-treatment, cruelty and harassment caused by therevision petitioner and his family members. Hence, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and joined with her parents. Thereafter, mediation was conducted for reunion but it was in vain. The respondent had levelled a case against the revision petitioner before the All Women Wing Police Station, Coimbatore. The said case was registered in Crime No.32 of 2009, for the offence under Section 498A, 406, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the respondent herein had claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly maintenance against her husband, i.e., revision petitioner since he is doing business in scrap and old iron and as such he is earning Rs.35,000/- per month. 3. The revision petitioner / husband had filed counter statement and denied the allegations made in the maintenance case by his wife / respondent. The revision petitioner has admitted that the second (minor) respondent was born to him on 08.11.2005. 3. The revision petitioner / husband had filed counter statement and denied the allegations made in the maintenance case by his wife / respondent. The revision petitioner has admitted that the second (minor) respondent was born to him on 08.11.2005. However, he has denied that seethana ornaments viz., 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-had been given to him. The revision petitioner had also denied the allegation that he and his family members treated the respondent herein cruelly. The revision petitioner had lived with his wife only for 45 days. Thereafter, he had left for Saudi Arabia. Again he had come to India on 17.09.2007. Therefore, the allegation levelled against him and his family members are totally false. 4. While the case is pending on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, the respondent / wife had filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.134 of 2010 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month, pending disposal of the main case, since she and her daughter are struggling for their day to day livelihood. The said interim application had been resisted by the revision petitioner herein. 5. On considering the averments of both the parties and on verifying the relevant records and on hearing the submission made by both the parties, the learned judge had held that the revision petitioner had earned a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. Therefore, the learned judge directed the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month to the first and second respondents herein and apportioned a sum of Rs.3,000/-and Rs.1,000/- respectively to the first and second respondent. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the above revision. 7. When the matter came up for admission on 28.02.2011, this Court had imposed a condition on the revision petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrears of maintenance amount awarded by the Court below, within a period of four weeks from the date of order. Further, the Court has permitted the wife to withdraw the said amount after it was deposited. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had submitted that the conditional order had been complied with. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned judge had come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner is earning Rs.6,000/-per month through his old iron business. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had submitted that the conditional order had been complied with. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned judge had come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner is earning Rs.6,000/-per month through his old iron business. Out of that earning, the revision petitioner has to pay Rs.4,000/- per month i.e, 2/3rd of the income of the revision petitioner which is excessive and also against the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revision petitioner earns Rs.35,000/- per month and that the same would be proved after trial. So far, quantum of adequate maintenance had not been decided by the learned judge on merits. Therefore, the interim maintenance order need not be interfered with. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either sides and on perusing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that, so far, the quantum of maintenance had not been decided on merits. Therefore, this Court directs the learned Family Judge, Coimbatore to decide the main case on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the revision petitioner herein shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents since they are living separately and without the support of the revision petitioner herein. 11. In the result, the above revision has been disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P.No.134 of 2010 in M.C.No.217 of 2009, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, dated 22.01.2011 is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.