Judgment :- ORDER The brief facts of the case is as follows:- 1. The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.77 of 2005, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, against her husband, the revision petitioner herein, stating that she had married him on 31.08.2001 as per Hindu Customs and Rites at Vinayaka Temble, Echanari. The marriage expenses of Rs.50,000/- was incurred by the parents of the wife. The wife further stated that at the time of marriage, 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments had been given. The revision petitioner had already married one Nageswari and through her he had two children. 2. The wife further stated that her husband did not show any love and affection towards her. Further, her husband always loved his children through his first wife. She further stated that her husband had demanded a scooter from her parents. Her parents were unable to provide the same. On one occasion, her health had been severely affected, while she was with her parents. During that time, her husband did not care about her. After her health became normal, she came to the matrimonial home. Her in-laws prevented her from entering into the house and closed the house. Thereafter, she levelled a case before the All Women Wing Police Station, Podanur against her mother-in-law. Thereafter, she had been deserted by her husband. Hence, the case has been filed against her husband and she has claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-from her husband, who is working at a private company as a moulder and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 3. The husband had filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. The husband admitted the second marriage and it was solemnized on 31.08.2001. He further stated that the respondent herein is five years elder to him. Therefore, her mother had contacted his mother several times for arrangement of marriage to the respondent wife. Accordingly, the marriage was performed. He further stated that he never demanded any dowry amount or scooter as alleged by his wife. Further he had not harassed his wife. He further denied the allegation of his wife that her health had been affected. The respondent / wife had levelled a false complaint against his mother. Immediately, after marriage, she lived happily with the revision petitioner for one week. Further he had not harassed his wife. He further denied the allegation of his wife that her health had been affected. The respondent / wife had levelled a false complaint against his mother. Immediately, after marriage, she lived happily with the revision petitioner for one week. Thereafter, she told the children of his first wife that both of them were born to some one else and hence she would not take care of either of them. Further she had asked the revision petitioner to drive the children out of her home. The same was not acceded to by the husband. Thereafter, she deserted the matrimonial home. He further stated that his second wife had tortured his first wife's children by pouring hot water on them. His wife had always hated and harassed his first wife's children. 4. The husband further stated that her father is running a finance business and is also a partner in a leather firm. His wife is also working there and earning Rs.4,000/-per month. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the maintenance petition. 5. On considering the averments of both the parties, the learned judge had framed two issues viz., "(i) Whether the wife is entitled to get maintenance from her husband and if so, what is the quantum of maintenance? (ii) To what relief is the petitioner entitled to?" 6. P.W.1 / wife had marked seven documents viz., Ex.P1-voter list, Ex.P2-marriage receipt, Ex.P3-complaint receipt issued by police station, Ex.P4-advocate notice, Ex.P5-acknowledgment card, Ex.P6-husband's reply notice and Ex.P7-Nageswari's scan report. She had adduced evidence stating that she is the second wife of her husband and the marriage was solemnized on 31.08.2001. His first wife expired due to brain fever, and she had given birth to two children. After marriage, she lived at the matrimonial home, as a joint family. Subsequently, difference of opinion had arisen between them. He had no issues through her. She further stated that she had lodged a complaint against her mother-in-law for demanding dowry. P.W.1 further stated that she had been deserted by her husband . Her husband is a moulder in a private company and earns a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 7. On the side of the respondent, six documents were marked viz., pay slip, F.I.R., medical receipts, complaint copy and another copy of complaint to higher police officials. Three witnesses had been examined on his side. Her husband is a moulder in a private company and earns a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. 7. On the side of the respondent, six documents were marked viz., pay slip, F.I.R., medical receipts, complaint copy and another copy of complaint to higher police officials. Three witnesses had been examined on his side. R.W.1., had stated that P.W.1 is his second wife and he had married her on 31.08.2001, since his first wife had expired due to brain fever. R.W.1, further stated that P.W.1 left the matrimonial home on 23.12.2003 and informed him that she is not interested to lead her marital life with him. R.W.1 further stated that P.W.1 had lodged a complaint before the All Women Wing Police Station. R.W.2, mother of R.W.1 had also been examined. R.W.3, daughter of R.W.1 had also been examined. R.W.2 and R.W3's evidence were in consonance with the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.3 further stated that the P.W.1 had mixed some poison in the food and had given it to her. 8. On considering the evidence of both sides and on perusing the relevant records including pay slips, the learned Magistrate held that the revision petitioner's net salary is a sum of Rs.2,500/- after deductions from his gross salary of a sum of Rs.6,000/-, and awarded a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.750/-per month to the wife, from the date of filing of maintenance case. The learned Magistrate further directed that the arrears of maintenance shall be cleared within a period of three months and thereafter the husband has to pay monthly maintenance to his wife on the 10th of every succeeding english calender month. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has filed the above revision. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home after informing the revision petitioner that she is not willing to lead her life with the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has to look after his aged mother and two daughters, who were born through his first wife. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent wife has the capacity to earn and maintain herself. 11. The above case came before this Court for admission on 11.01.2007. This Court admitted the case and ordered notice. The notice was not served on the respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent wife has the capacity to earn and maintain herself. 11. The above case came before this Court for admission on 11.01.2007. This Court admitted the case and ordered notice. The notice was not served on the respondent. Subsequently, this Court had also granted time to the revision petitioner's counsel to send notice but inspite of this, notice had not been served. The revision has been pending for a period of more than five years. Therefore, this Court is constrained to take decision on the available records. 12. On verifying the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Judge and on submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the maintenance amount of a sum of Rs.750/- awarded to the respondent is on the higher side, considering the commitments of the revision petitioner towards his mother and his two daughters. Therefore, this Court reduces the monthly maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs.750/-(Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. This Court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the arrears amount, i.e., from the date of filing the maintenance case till date, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, as per this Court's order on monthly maintenance. Thereafter, the revision petitioner shall send maintenance to the respondent directly or into the credit of M.C.No.77 of 2005, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, regularly, on or before the 5th of every succeeding english calender month. If the revision petitioner fails to comply with this Court's conditional order, then this Court directs the learned Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore to issue bailable warrant on the revision petitioner / husband and secure him into judicial custody as per norms laid down by law. For issuing bailable warrant, prior notice is not necessary, since the revision petitioner is well aware that the maintenance case is being contested by him. The above direction has been passed by this Court after invoking the discretionary power vested with it. 13. Resultantly, the above revision has been partly allowed with the above rectifications. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.No.77 of 2005, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, dated 14.11.2006 is modified. Accordingly ordered.