Judgment :- The revision petitioner herein / husband has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.239 of 2010 against the order made in M.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. 2. The respondents / wife and minor daughter / petitioners 1 to 2 case is as follows:- The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent herein and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.02.1984 at Vandranthangal Village according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The first petitioner submits that after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lived as husband and wife at Vandranthangal Village in a separate portion allotted to them by the respondent's parents. At that time, the respondent worked in military and the first petitioner and respondent lived peacefully for six years. Thereafter, the respondent retired from military service and joined as a staff in the Consumer forum at Chennai. Both the first petitioner and the respondent lived at Thiruvanmiyur for one year. The first petitioner submits that the respondent then shifted his family to Vandranthangal without any reason and slowly neglected the first petitioner and failed to provide basic necessities to run the family. The respondent's family members, who are at adjacent portions never cared about the welfare of the petitioner and the respondent from the beginning. While she was five months pregnant, during the month of May 1993, she came to know that the respondent had illicit relations with one Nalini of Ulliputhur Village, Vellore District and when she questioned the respondent regarding this, he beat the first petitioner even at the stage of pregnancy and neglected the first petitioner. Subsequently, she gave birth the second petitioner herein, named as Rekha, on 13.11.1993. The respondent showed no interest to see the baby and had shown no interest to live with the first petitioner. The first petitioner's parents brought back the petitioners to Vandranthangal. The respondent, on his rare occasions to the petitioner's house compelled her to give her consent for his second marriage. On her refusal to do so, he beat the first petitioner in order to put an end to her life. Many complaints were lodged by her with the police and to the higher officials. The respondent, on his rare occasions to the petitioner's house compelled her to give her consent for his second marriage. On her refusal to do so, he beat the first petitioner in order to put an end to her life. Many complaints were lodged by her with the police and to the higher officials. The respondent being a judicial staff managed to get sympathy from the inquiry officers and gave false promises to maintain the petitioners and managed to close the complaints given by the first petitioner. 3. The petitioners submit that since the respondent neglected the petitioners they had no other option except to take asylum at the first petitioner's parents house. The first petitioner's parents are poor persons and they find it difficult to maintain the petitioners. The petitioners have no means to live and have no income. Further, the second petitioner is studying in X standard and she required money for further education. Each of the first and second petitioners require Rs.3,000/-per month as maintenance for their, food, clothes, medical expenses etc., The respondent gets a monthly military pension of Rs.1,000/- and he is working as a staff at Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mylapore, Chennai and gets a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Further he owns lands and house at Vandranthangal Village to the value of Rs.2,00,000/-and thereby he gets a monthly income of Rs.1,000/-. As such, it was prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass maintenance order directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- each as monthly maintenance to the first and second petitioners from the date of filing the maintenance petition with costs. 4. The revision petitioner herein / respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the said maintenance case. The husband denied that he is working at Tamil Nadu Consumer Forum as Office Assistant. He has admitted the marriage with the first petitioner, who is his sister's daughter. The marriage expenses have been borne by his brother and himself. The husband further stated that whenever he goes for work, his wife would go somewhere. The respondent denied that he has illicit relations with Nalini, who is a servant maid. His wife is enjoying his house property as well as landed property. He has no drinking habits and he is also not a womanizer as alleged. The husband further stated that whenever he goes for work, his wife would go somewhere. The respondent denied that he has illicit relations with Nalini, who is a servant maid. His wife is enjoying his house property as well as landed property. He has no drinking habits and he is also not a womanizer as alleged. His wife had lodged a complaint before the police station, wherein he had admitted to pay Rs.500/- as monthly maintenance and he is prepared to pay the same. 5. On considering the averments of both parties, the learned Magistrate had framed two issues, viz., "(i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive maintenance? (ii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 6. On the side of the petitioners, two witnesses had been examined viz., P.W.1, petitioner and P.W.2, one Thiruvengadam. Three exhibits were marked which are as follows, viz., Ex.P1-marriage invitation, Ex.P2-advocate notice and Ex.P3-reply notice. On the side of the respondent, no witness, no documents. 7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the respondent had married her on 12.02.1984. Immediately, after marriage, both led their married life at Vandranthangal Village. Her husband had not properly taken care of her, and had not provided her with the basic requirements of food, clothes, medicines etc., She further stated that her husband had developed illicit relations with one Nalini. After his retirement from military service, he has joined at Madras Consumer Forum as Office Assistant. As such, he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides this, he also receives military pension. He possesses a house and landed properties. 8. After recording the evidence of the wife, the maintenance case had been adjourned from time to time for cross-examination of P.W.1. But, the respondent husband had not appeared and the counsel also had not appeared. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had passed the maintenance order on the basis of P.W.1's evidence and exhibits, and ordered the revision petitioner herein / husband to pay a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,000/- to his wife and a sum of Rs.1,500/- to his minor daughter. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed by the husband. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / husband submits that the learned Magistrate had passed an ex-parte order. So the maintenance had not been properly assessed. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed by the husband. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / husband submits that the learned Magistrate had passed an ex-parte order. So the maintenance had not been properly assessed. The revision petitioner had not produced any document or evidence before the trial Court. The marriage expenses had been borne by the revision petitioner and his brother. Whenever the revision petitioner goes for military service, the respondent used to go somewhere else and as such she had not been a dutiful wife to the revision petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the revision petitioner is working at Consumer Forum and earning a nett salary of Rs.6,143/- per month. Besides this, he also gets military pension. The learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner herein possesses house property and landed property. After considering the revision petitioner income sources, the learned Magistrate had assessed the maintenance. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the second respondent herein is a minor daughter and a school going girl for which the revision petitioner is liable to pay adequate maintenance to the second petitioner for education expenses, uniform, transport and maintenance to the first and second petitioners for food, accommodation and medical expenses etc., 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner's pension particulars and present employment particulars including salary had not been furnished before the trial Court. In the absence of income particulars, the learned Magistrate assessed the maintenance as Rs.3,000/-to the wife and as Rs.1,500/- to the daughter, which is on the higher side. Therefore, this Court modifies the maintenance granted to wife from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only). However the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) granted by the trial Court to the second petitioner (daughter) remains unaltered, as it is found to be appropriate in this case. This order would come into effect from September 2008. Therefore, this Court modifies the maintenance granted to wife from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only). However the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) granted by the trial Court to the second petitioner (daughter) remains unaltered, as it is found to be appropriate in this case. This order would come into effect from September 2008. This Court directs the revision petitioner / husband to pay monthly maintenance as per this Court order i.e., in total a sum of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the respondents herein on or before the 10th day of every english calender month, regularly. This Court further directs the revision petitioner to pay the arrears, if any, to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Resultantly, the above revision is partly allowed and consequently, the order passed in M.C.No.53 of 2008, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, dated 19.01.2010 is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.