Judgment :- The respondents herein (Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011) had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.14 of 2010, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem District against the revision petitioner herein / husband stating that the first respondent / wife had married the revision petitioner herein on 23.06.1993, at Puliankurichi Villagge, Attur Taluk, at the residence of the father of the first respondent. At the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold jewelleries, household articles and cash of Rs.50,000/- were provided to the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent gave birth to two children through her husband. About four years ago, the revision petitioner had tied the minor children and tortured them and also prevented them from going to school. The revision petitioner had refused to lead his marital life with the first respondent as she has been affected by a disease. The revision petitioner used to come along with his friends late at night and ask her to prepare meat for consumption along with alcohol. Under the circumstances, the first respondent, left the matrimonial home, taking her children along with her. The first respondent further stated that the revision petitioner possesses four acres of cultivable land and is a render of milk. Besides this, he also leads money on interest basis. He is also having a paddy harvesting machine, through which he is also getting income. As such, he is earning about Rs.7,00,000/- per year. The revision petitioner has also developed illicit relations with women. Therefore, the first respondent herein has claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to her and her two children. 2. The revision petitioner / husband had filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. He had admitted the marriage and also admitted that the children were born to him. He had categorically denied that he was drinking habit and has denied that he has illicit relationship with women. Actually, he has been affected by hypo thyroid disease. He further stated that he had provided good education to the children. Immediately after marriage, the first respondent was not interested to lead her matrimonial life with the revision petitioner and had asked him to settle the entire property in her favour. The first respondent had demanded transfer certificates of the minor children from the school. The school authorities told her to bring the father of the minor children. Immediately after marriage, the first respondent was not interested to lead her matrimonial life with the revision petitioner and had asked him to settle the entire property in her favour. The first respondent had demanded transfer certificates of the minor children from the school. The school authorities told her to bring the father of the minor children. Thereafter, the first respondent had conducted dhrama in front of the Collector's office and also informed to the higher officials that she would commit suicide if the transfer certificates are not issued to the minor children. The revision petitioner further stated that on 15.06.2003, she had lodged a false complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted enquiry and effected a compromise amongst them. Thereafter, she had her marital life with the revision petitioner for a period of six months. Subsequently, without informing the revision petitioner, she left the matrimonial home with her minor children. Again, the first respondent herein lodged one more criminal complaint with the All Women Wing Police Station, Kallakurichi, alleging that the revision petitioner is demanding dowry. The revision petitioner had also made representation before the legal aid committee, Kallakurichi and has sought for compromise. The first respondent had already filed a similar case in M.C.No.21 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. Now, the first respondent is working at Tagore School, Deviyakurichi. The revision petitioner possessed three acres of cultivable land but the said land is subject to a civil suit. The revision petitioner further stated that he does not have any income and that he suffers from thyroid disease. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the said maintenance case. 3. After considering the averments of both parties, the learned Magistrate had framed two issues, viz., "(i) Has the wife got separated from her husband due to any valid reasons? (ii) Whether the wife and minor children are entitled to get maintenance from the husband / father? If so, what is the quantum of maintenance?" 4. On the side of the wife, the wife has been examined as P.W.1 and she had marked five exhibits, viz., Ex.P1-marriage invitation, Ex.P2-advocate notice, Ex.P3-acknowledgment card, Ex.P4-reply notice, Ex.P5-school certificate of minor Dinesh. On the side of the husband, the husband was examined as R.W.1., and he had marked one exhibit, viz., the order copy in M.C.No.21 of 2009, dated 12.03.2010. 5. On the side of the husband, the husband was examined as R.W.1., and he had marked one exhibit, viz., the order copy in M.C.No.21 of 2009, dated 12.03.2010. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence tating that she had married R.W.1. on 23.06.1993 at her parent's house situated at Puliankurichi Village, Attur Taluk. At the time of marriage, her parents had gifted 15 sovereigns of gold jewelleries and cash of Rs.50,000/-and "seethana" articles. She further stated that her husband tortured the minor children and also prevented them from attending school. She further stated that her husband used to come along with his friends to the house, in a drunken mood and asked her to prepare meat. She further stated that due to the torture of her husband, she had left the matrimonial home along with her children. She further stated that her husband earns Rs.3,00,000/- per annum through paddy harvesting machine and he possess cultivable land. In order to establish her case, she had marked the above mentioned exhibits. 6. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that he did not possess paddy harvesting machine and he has admitted that he possesses three acres of land, in which he cultivates sugarcane crop. He had admitted that through cultivation, he is able to earn Rs.3,00,000/-per annum. R.W.1 further admitted that his two minor children are studying in a school. His wife is working at Tagore School and she is earning. He had further stated that his wife had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.21 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. The same was dismissed. R.W.1. admitted that the first respondent is his wife and that the second and third respondents are his school going minor children. 7. After recording the evidence of both sides and on perusing the exhibits marked by them, the learned Magistrate had awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/-each to the three respondents, i.e., in total a sum of Rs.4,500/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred only) per month. This order was effective from 14.10.2010 i.e., from the date of presentation of the maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate. 8. Aggrieved by this order, passed in M.C.No.14 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem District, dated 06.04.2011, the revision petitioner herein / husband has preferred the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011. 9. This order was effective from 14.10.2010 i.e., from the date of presentation of the maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate. 8. Aggrieved by this order, passed in M.C.No.14 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem District, dated 06.04.2011, the revision petitioner herein / husband has preferred the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011 submitted that without earning proof of the revision petitioner, the learned Magistrate had ordered for a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month to be paid as monthly maintenance. The learned Magistrate has not considered that the revision petitioner has been affected by hypo thyroid disease and that due to this, he is unable to engage himself in agricultural operations. The first respondent is working in Tagore Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Deviyakurichi. This fact had not been considered by the learned Magistrate. The earlier maintenance case filed by the first respondent in M.C.No.21 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi was dismissed. Suppressing the said dismissal order, the present maintenance case has been filed on the same cause of action. The learned counsel further submitted that the quantum of maintenance has been assessed by the learned magistrate without any documentary proof. 10. The learned counsel counsel for the respondents / revision petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.1489 of 2011 submitted that the first respondent / wife is not an earning member and the second and third respondents are school going children. The husband had admitted that he earns Rs.3,00,000/-per annum. As such, the monthly maintenance assessed by the learned Magistrate is on the lower side. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents are entitled to receive 1/3rd of the income of the revision petitioner. As such, the respondents are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month in total as monthly maintenance, but the learned Magistrate had awarded only Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the learned counsel has sought enhanced maintenance. The learned counsel further submitted that the minor daughter is studying in XII standard and minor son is studying in X standard. The first respondent, being a dutiful mother of the children is providing education, clothes, educational fees, medical expenses, uniform, transport, entertainment and communication facility to her children. Therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/-each to the three respondents is inadequate. 11. The first respondent, being a dutiful mother of the children is providing education, clothes, educational fees, medical expenses, uniform, transport, entertainment and communication facility to her children. Therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/-each to the three respondents is inadequate. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / husband in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011 argued that the revision petitioner had entered into an agreement on 10.01.2008 to sell his property in favour of third persons and received a part of sale consideration. The said schedule property is now subject to litigation. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner is not able to comply with the impugned order. The learned counsel further submitted that a forged document had also been created over the said property. Therefore, the revision petitioner is unable to do any agricultural operations over the property. 12. From the foregoing discussions and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on both sides and on scrutinizing the impugned order passed in M.C.No.14 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem District, dated 06.04.2011, this Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. This Court further opines that the revision petitioner / husband has admitted that he is in possession of three acres of cultivable land including irrigation facility. Therefore, this Court considers that the revision petitioner has the financial capacity to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) to all the respondents in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011. The second and third respondents are school going children. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the lower Court is not on the higher side. Hence, this Court directs the revision petitioner / husband in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011 to pay the maintenance to the respondents as per trial Court order, regularly on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month. If any arrears of monthly maintenance is due to the respondents, the revision petitioner is directed to pay the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. The revision petitioner / husband is suffering from hypothyroid disease. Therefore, his physical condition has deteriorated, and he is also facing civil Court proceedings, over the said land, before the Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi in O.S.No.5 of 2010. Under the circumstances, the enhancement of maintenance revision preferred by the respondents in Crl.R.C.No.1489 of 2011 cannot be entertained. 13. The revision petitioner / husband is suffering from hypothyroid disease. Therefore, his physical condition has deteriorated, and he is also facing civil Court proceedings, over the said land, before the Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi in O.S.No.5 of 2010. Under the circumstances, the enhancement of maintenance revision preferred by the respondents in Crl.R.C.No.1489 of 2011 cannot be entertained. 14. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2011 is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order passed in M.C.No.14 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Attur, Salem District, dated 06.04.2011 is confirmed. Connected Crl.R.C.No.1489 of 2011 is also dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.