Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 170 (MAD)

Mariya Singaraj v. Poulin Anbu Selvi

2013-01-08

M.VENUGOPAL

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner/Husband has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 20.08.2007 in Cr.R.C.No.11 of 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, in reversing the order dated 24.01.2006 in M.C.No.14 of 2004 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. 2. The Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, while passing the order on 20.08.2007 in Crl.R.C.No.11 of 2006 (filed by the Respondent Wife as Petitioner) has among other things observed that "the Respondent (Husband) and the Petitioner (Wife) are Husband and Wife and because of the Respondent (Husband)'s second marriage, they are residing separately and because of the Husband's second marriage, the first Wife is entitled to live separately and as such, in view of the fact that she has no adequate facilities to protect herself/maintain herself and at the same time, the Respondent (Husband) is in good position and therefore, he is liable to pay a just maintenance to the Wife and resultantly, directed the Respondent /Husband (Revision Petitioner before this Court) to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- to the Wife and set aside the order dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi in M.C.No.14 of 2004. Also, a direction has been issued that the Respondent/Husband should pay a sum of Rs.500/-towards monthly maintenance to the Wife from the date of filing of the Maintenance Case Petition and consequently the Revision Petition filed by the Wife has been allowed by the trial Court. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20.08.2007 in Crl.R.C.No.11 of 2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, as an aggrieved person, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has focussed the present Criminal Revision before this Court. 4. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband, the Respondent/Wife got married to the Revision Petitioner/Husband on 14.09.1984 as per customary rights and in between them, no issues were born as a result of the wedlock and according to the case of the Respondent/Wife, the Revision Petitioner/Husband got irritated and harassed her in spite of the elder's advice and he left the marital house and started living with one Muneeswari on account of the second marriage with her held on 10.01.2000. 5. 5. It is also the submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband that through Muneeswari, the Revision Petitioner has two sons and one daughter and that the Respondent/Wife has claimed a sum of Rs.500/-towards maintenance from the Revision Petitioner/Husband. Furthermore, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband contends that it is the plea of the Respondent/Wife that she finds it difficult to manage her daily needs and that her Husband is earning Rs.25,000/-per month from the business and also earns Rs.2 lakhs per year from the landed properties. 6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that it is false on the part of the Respondent/Wife to contend that the Petitioner/Husband had illicit intimacy with one Muneeswari of Vagaivayal and got married to her on 10.01.2000 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. At this stage, it is the categorical stand of the Petitioner/Husband that the Respondent/Wife conducted the second marriage of the Petitioner/Husband with Muneeswari in the year 1992 and in fact, the Respondent/Wife and the said Muneeswari lived in the very same house, but the Respondent/Wife started behaving indifferently because of the fact that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has showered his love and affection to the said Muneeswari and her children. As such, the Respondent/Wife after creating chaos and confusion in the family, at last left the house of the Petitioner/Husband and later, with the help of her brothers, she endeavoured to kill him and caused grievous injury with the help of Aruval and also forcibly took all the articles especially 4-1/2 sovereign gold and the Petitioner/Husband lodged a complaint before the Thirupalaikudi Police Station and a Criminal case was registered against the Respondent/Wife and her brothers. Whereupon, a panchayat was convened on 11.01.1999, in which the Respondent/Wife admitted that she was living as the wife of the Petitioner/Husband separately in her Father's house and towards future maintenance, the Revision Petitioner's Father's property Umandi land and half of 4.3 acres of punja land was agreed to be given to the Respondent/Wife, besides an ancestral house and a sum of Rs.4500/-to be given to her. Accordingly, the said criminal case was agreed to be settled. Therefore, the Respondent/Wife is not entitled to claim the relief of maintenance and also that the Petitioner/Husband has denied that he is earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and Rs.2 lakhs through lands. 7. Accordingly, the said criminal case was agreed to be settled. Therefore, the Respondent/Wife is not entitled to claim the relief of maintenance and also that the Petitioner/Husband has denied that he is earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and Rs.2 lakhs through lands. 7. The fervent plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband is that the Learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record on 24.01.2006 has dismissed the Maintenance Petition holding that the Respondent/Wife is not entitled to claim the relief of maintenance of a sum of Rs.500/- per month from the Revision Petitioner/Husband. 8. A perusal of the averments made by the Respondent/Wife in M.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court shows that her marriage with the Revision Petitioner/Husband has taken place on 14.09.1984 and in their marriage life, no child has been born to them and because of frustration, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has started harassing her and bearing the same, she has been living with him and also that in spite of advice tendered by the elders, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has not listened to their words and he has not continued his marriage relationship with her and when her marriage has been in subsistence, he developed illegal intimacy with one Muneeswari of Vagaivayal village and also got married to her on 10.01.2000 in a reformative manner and through Muneeswari, the Petitioner has two male children and one female child. 9. In as much as she is not in a position to live with him unitedly and also since no one is available to take care of her and also since she is uneducated and unable to earn and maintain herself independently, she has filed the petition, claiming maintenance from the Revision Petitioner/Husband at the rate of Rs.500/-per month. According to the Respondent/Wife, the Revision Petitioner/Husband earns a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- through charcoal business. Also, that her Husband has Nanja and punja lands and through agriculture, he derives an income of more than Rs.2 lakhs. 10. According to the Respondent/Wife, the Revision Petitioner/Husband earns a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- through charcoal business. Also, that her Husband has Nanja and punja lands and through agriculture, he derives an income of more than Rs.2 lakhs. 10. In the counter to M.C.No.14 of 2004, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has interalia stated that it is only the Respondent/Wife living separately from him and she indulges in agricultural operations in the Umandi land situated at Vagaivayal village and also she cultivates the punja land of 4.83 acres, which was purchased from one Kaspar of Chennai and therefore, it is false to state that she is living a difficult life for her sustenance. Moreover, she along with her Father Siluvaidoss, Dhasushmary, Swaminathan has beat the Revision Petitioner/Husband and also cut him with sickle and caused injuries and also committed robbery of a sum of Rs.55,000/=, cycle, paddy bags, TV, Passport and Jewels weighing 4-1/2 soveriegn and a complaint has been lodged at Thirupalaikudi Police Station in Crime No.127 of 199 and that in Ramanathapuram Court, a Sessions Case proceedings have been held. 11. That apart, the plea of the Revision Petitioner/Husband is that the Respondent/Wife in the presence of Ariyankottai Balakrishnan, Vagaivayal Muniyasamyu, Solanthur Sethu, Karuppur Kimbiyanvel and Pootagavayal Yousuf conducted a panchayat on 11.11.1999 and in the panchayat, a decision has been taken that the Respondent/Wife has to handover the stolen articles to the Revision Petitioner/Husband and since the Respondent/Wife has categorically informed that she is not willing to live with the Revision Petitioner/Husband, she informed that she will live as wife of the Revision Petitioner/Husband, in the panchayat, it has been further decided that the Respondent/Wife has to cultivate the Umandi land belongs to the Father of the Petitioner/Husband and in the half share land of 4.83 acre which was purchased by the Petitioner/Husband and also that the Revision Petitioner/Husband's ancestral house will have to be taken by the Respondent/Wife and after her demise, the said Umandi land and the half share of 4.83 acres of land will have to be handed over back to the Revision Petitioner/Husband. Only based on this kind of panchayat's decision/compromise, the Respondent/Wife and three accused got released from the criminal case and also Revision Petitioner/Husband ,as per decision of panchayat paid a sum of Rs.4500/- to the Respondent/Wife. 12. Only based on this kind of panchayat's decision/compromise, the Respondent/Wife and three accused got released from the criminal case and also Revision Petitioner/Husband ,as per decision of panchayat paid a sum of Rs.4500/- to the Respondent/Wife. 12. In effect, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has taken a stand in the counter to M.C.No.14 of 2004 that the Respondent/Wife is utilising the lands of 3 acres which he has given to her for agricultural operation and through the agricultural operations, she earns an income of over and above Rs.50,000/-per year and also that now, he is unemployed and leads a difficult life to maintain his three children also. 13. It is to be pointed out that the object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The obligation of the Husband to maintain Wife is Statutory in character. The Husband is not entitled to set up an agreement between Husband and Wife absolving the Husband from Statutory liability. Moreover in the decision in Chiman Ram Bhatar and Others Vs. Ganga Saha and another (AIR 1961 Ori 94), it is held that "though a compromise has been filed directing the annual payment in paddy, the proper order for the Magistrate would be to award monthly maintenance after continuing the paddy into cash. That apart, in the decision in N.E.Vasudevan Nair Vs. Kalyani Amma ( 1970 CrlJ 1193 (Ker.), it is observed and held that "the fact that a compromise has been entered into between parties in which the Husband has agreed as to the rate of maintenance is sufficient proof of neglect or refusal. 14. In fact, Section 125 of Cr.P.C., does not authorise a neglect wife to have an absolute right to get maintenance nor it impose an absolute liability on the Husband to pay maintenance. But, it is in the discretion of Court, which is to be exercised judicially as per decision of Hon'ble High Court 1975 (2) SCC P 386 (Shri Dhagwan Dutt Vs. Smt.Kamila Devi and Another). Also, the term of 'residence' includes a temporary residence. In reality, the ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., gives direction to weaker sections of the society i.e. woman and children and hence comes under Art.15(3) and Art.39 of the Constitution of India. It is needless for this Court to point out that maintenance application/petition is not complained and it does not require any verification as per decision AIR 1946 Pat. It is needless for this Court to point out that maintenance application/petition is not complained and it does not require any verification as per decision AIR 1946 Pat. 104. Furthermore, the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C are semi civil tried in Criminal Court and as such, there is no complaint are caused in the proceedings between the parties. Normally, a wife is entitled to 1/5th to 1/3rd of income of Husband as maintenance. 15. In the decision AIR 1954 Madras 513 (P.Madhavan Vs. Munir Begum), it is held that where, however, the compromise petition embodies other matters which are beyond the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it cannot be taken effect to by the Magistrate and the aggrieved party has got only the remedy to move civil Court for enforcement of the terms of compromise. 16. For the purpose of better appreciation of the merits of the controversies between the parties, this Court makes an useful and pertinent reference to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, R.W.1 and R.W.2. 17. The evidence of P.W.1 (Respondent/Wife) is to the effect that the Revision Petitioner/Husband got married to her on 14.09.1984 at Goliyanoor Church and after marriage, she lived with the Revision Petitioner/Husband in his house for 9 years without any problem and she has no issue and because of that reason, the Revision Petitioner/Husband started harassing her and also she complained about his behaviour to his elders of Vagaivayal village and one among the elders viz., Rajendran informed the Revision Petitioner/Husband to live with the Respondent/Wife properly, but the Revision Petitioner has not heeded his advice and later, he lived with one Muneeswari of Vagaivayal and also got married to her subsequently and through her, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has two male children and one female child. Further, her husband is living as a family with Muneeswari and her Children by neglecting her and he has not accepted the attempt made on her side to live with her and therefore, there is no possibility for her to live with the Petitioner/Husband unitedly. 18. Furthermore, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she is now residing with her Father doing coolie work and living in difficult times. 18. Furthermore, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she is now residing with her Father doing coolie work and living in difficult times. According to P.W.1, her Husband is doing Charcoal business through which he earns annual income of more than Rs.2 lakhs, besides he is in possession of nanja and punja lands at Vagaivayal village and since she is unable to maintain herself and finds it difficult to live for her maintenance, she is in need of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance from the Revision Petitioner/Husband inasmuch as he has neglected to live with her. 19. P.W.1 (in her cross examination) has deposed that in her village, there is Umandi land in which she is in possession of the said land which belongs to her Husband's Father ancestrally and she has not purchased the said land. It is to correct to state that in the panchayat held on 11.11.1999, the said land was given to her for maintenance and the said land measured an extent of less than half acre and her husband has purchased the said land from one Kasper from Chennai and the said land has been purchased in favour of both the Petitioner/Husband and the Respondent/Wife and that the said land is less than 5 acres and in the pachayat, it has been decided that till her life time, she has to keep the Umandi land towards maintenance and she resides only in her Husband's Father's property at Vagaivayal village. 20. P.W.2 (P.W.1's Father) in his evidence has deposed that it is false to state that only with a consent of her daughter viz., P.W.1, the Revision Petitioner has married second time and his daughter P.W.1 is residing in a rented place near Kamala Nehru Nagar at Yemaneshwaram in Ramnadu and a criminal case has been registered in connection with the robbery of TV, Fan, 50 bags of paddy and Rs.55,000/-cash etc., but based on compromise, the criminal case got ended and they are unable to maintain P.W.1 and his daughter is fighting alone and that his wife has expired and has also living lonely and his sons have got separated from him. 21. 21. Proceeding further, P.W.2 in his evidence has also further deposed that P.W.1 (his daughter) has been living separately for the past 13 years and the Revision Petitioner/Husband has come to cut her daughter when she has been residing in the house given as per panchayat decision, but no complaint has been given before the Police Station, but, he has seen the occurrence and that he does not know about the conduct of marriage between the Revision Petitioner/Husband and one Muneeswari and it is not correct to state that only with the consent of his daughter (P.W.1), the Petitioner/Husband's second marriage with Muneeswari is taken place. Also, the categorical evidence of P.W.2 is that P.W.1 (his daughter) is not residing at Jothinagar, but she resides at Kamala Nehru Nagar in the house of V.A.O., Govindan. 22. Also, the categorical evidence of P.W.2 is that P.W.1 (his daughter) is not residing at Jothinagar, but she resides at Kamala Nehru Nagar in the house of V.A.O., Govindan. 22. The evidence of R.W.1/Husband is that during the year 1992, the Respondent/Wife has taken treatment to gave birth a child at Aravind Hospital and the Doctor and his Wife have been talking for a long time, but, his Wife has not informed him as to what they talked and his Wife has remained dejected and also she informed him some dates later that he can marry another person and therefore, she along with her Father performed his second marriage with one Muneeswari, a localite and through Muneeswari, he has one female child and two male children and all of them resided jointly in one house and his wife/P.W.1 has not liked his conduct of his happy movement with the children and that she used to scold his children and in the said circumstances, one day, his Wife/Respondent, his Father-in-Law, Father-in-Law's brother Swaminathan, his wife Dhanushmary, have come to his house at 10.00 p.m. in the night and cut him several times and caused injuries and ran away from the scene of occurrence and in crime No.127 of 1999, a criminal case has been registered against them by Thirupalaikudi Police Station and when he has been taking treatment at the Hospital at that time, the Respondent/Wife and her relatives have committed robbery of his household articles, 59 paddy bags, his Passport, utensils, iron box, sickle, jewels weighing 7 sovereigns and cash Rs.50,000/-and later in the panchayat held, it has been decided that half share of Umandi land and an ancestral house are to be given to her as decided in the panchayat and further in the half share of 4.83 acres of land, which has purchased from one Kaspar, it has been decided to give to her and also towards her maintenance, it has been decided that an amount of Rs.450/- will have to be paid by him to her. 23. 23. The substance of the evidence of R.W.1 is to the effect that since the Respondent/Wife (P.W.1) is able to maintain herself independently and further since the Petitioner/Husband is living with the second wife along with three children in all in difficult times, the claims or maintenance made by his Wife in M.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of trial Court is per se not maintainable. 24. R.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that the Respondent/Wife/P.W.1 is in enjoyment of the Nanja land which has been given to her as per the decision of panchayat and the Revision Petitioner/Husband's ancestral house, 50 cents Nanja land, 2-1/2 acre punja land and Rs.450/- cash have been decided to be given to the Respondent/Wife towards maintenance and in the punja land presently there are babool trees and he does not know, presently where the Respondent/Wife (P.W.1) is residing. 25. At this juncture, a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court in M.C.No.14 of 2004 on 24.01.2006 shows that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Respondent/Wife has refused to live unitedly with the Revision Petitioner/Husband and further in between them, a panchayat has been held and for which no document has come into existence. Further, the trial Court has also categorically observed that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 in cross examination has specifically stated that she does not know when the marriage between the Revision Petitioner/Husband and Muneeswari has taken place and only because of the reason that she has no child during the year 1992, with her consent, the second marriage of her Husband with Muneeswaari has taken place, and therefore, it has not accepted her plea that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has neglected to maintain her. 26. It is to be remembered that a Woman, who comes in the life of a Homo-sapien gives herself to him and takes the family life of the man and the man uses her as such, recognises as such and therefore she rightly comes within the purview of the term 'wife' in the considered opinion of this Court. Also the maintenance amount to be awarded and to be sufficient for a person to maintain a standard of living consistent with the status of his or her family. 27. Also the maintenance amount to be awarded and to be sufficient for a person to maintain a standard of living consistent with the status of his or her family. 27. The trial Court in its judgment in M.C.No.14 of 2004 in paragraph 12 has stated that it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner/Wife (Respondent in Revision Petition) that the Revision Petitioner as per Ex.P1 written statement in enjoyment of 4.83 acres of land for long period and has acquired enjoyment and therefore, it will be evident that the Respondent/Wife has not been in enjoyment of the land. Furthermore, the trial Court has also observed that based on the copy of counter statement filed in O.S.No.232 of 2004 (Ex.P1), it cannot be said that the Respondent/Wife (Petitioner in M.C.No.14 of 2004) has not been in enjoyment of + share of 4.83 acres of land. That apart, the trial Court has come to a categorical conclusion that the Respondent/Wife is doing cultivation at the Umandi land and she is residing in her Husband's Father's property and therefore, it has opined that she has all necessary facilities to maintain herself independently. In conclusion, the trial Court has observed that inasmuch as in the panchayat held, an agreement has been entered into, in and by which for a maintenance arrangement, a house, half acre Nanja land and + share out of 4.83 acres of land and cash Rs.4500/- all have been handed over to the Respondent/Wife and therefore it has been categorically held that she is not entitled to claim maintenance for a sum of Rs.500/- per month from the Revision Petitioner/Husband and in that view dismissed the maintenance petition. 28. In Ex.P1 (written statement filed by the Revision Petitioners as Defendant in O.s.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Paramakudi), it is mentioned that the Respondent/Wife is to return the total 46 articles (which she is keeping herself) to the Revision Petitioner/Husband and it has been decided so, but in spite of the same, the Respondent/Wife has not returned the articles to the Revision Petitioner/Husband and therefore, he has not handed over the possession of 3-1/2 acres of punja land to her. Moreover, the Revision Petitioner has taken a plea that the Revision Petitioner/Wife has raised objection about the agreement dated 11.11.1999 and in this regard, her action is barred by resjudicata. Moreover, the Revision Petitioner has taken a plea that the Revision Petitioner/Wife has raised objection about the agreement dated 11.11.1999 and in this regard, her action is barred by resjudicata. Subsequently, the partition suit filed by the Respondent/Wife in O.S.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakudi, wherein, she has prayed for equal share, has been dismissed for default on 27.10.2006. 29. A cursory glance of the order passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in Crl.R.C.No.11 of 2006 dated 20.08.2007 points out that the First Revisional Court in para 9 of its order has clearly observed that when the Respondent/Wife (Revision Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.11 of 2006) is very much alive and also her marriage with the Revision Petitioner has not been annulled, the conduct of second marriage by the Revision Petitioner/Husband is contrary to Law. It has also rejected the plea taken on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Husband that his marriage with the said Muneeswari has taken place only with the consent of Respondent/Wife (first wife). 30. Apart from the above, the first Revisional Court has also come to a conclusion in para 12 of its order that the Respondent/Wife is not in enjoyment of 4.83 acres of land and also opined that there is no doubt that the Respondent/Wife is living in the house given her in the panchayat, but just because she is residing there, it cannot be said that she derives an income from the said house. Finally, the first Revisional Court has not accepted the finding rendered by the trial Court that the Respondent/Wife has necessary facilities to maintain herself independently and ultimately held that even if lumpsum maintenance is awarded, she is entitled to claim monthly maintenance as per right and consequently directed the Revision Petitioner/Husband (before this Court) to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards maintenance per month from the date of filing of M.C.No.14 of 2004 and allowed the Revision without costs. 31. It is to be borne in mind that it is the moral and legal duty of the Revision Petitioner/Husband to maintain the Wife/first Wife and the Revision Petitioner cannot take a plea in refusing to pay the maintenance amount to the Respondent/Wife on even mere technicalities also. 31. It is to be borne in mind that it is the moral and legal duty of the Revision Petitioner/Husband to maintain the Wife/first Wife and the Revision Petitioner cannot take a plea in refusing to pay the maintenance amount to the Respondent/Wife on even mere technicalities also. If the Wife is neglected by the Revision Petitioner/Husband, then, she is entitled to claim maintenance amount and other amounts (for Food, Clothing and Medical expenses etc.) so as to keep her body and soul together. Generally, a woman having no independent means of income is entitled to 1/5th or 1/3rd of the Petitioner/Husband's income. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner/Accused is an able bodied person without annulling his first marriage with the Respondent/Wife. The Revision Petitioner/Husband has got married one Muneeswari for second time and through her, it is not disputed that he has two male children and one female child. Although, a plea has been taken on behalf of the Petitioner that it is only the Respondent/Wife (P.W.1 -first Wife) with her consent, he has performed his second marriage with one Muneeswari, but, it is to be pointed out that even where the second marriage of Petitioner/Husband is with the consent of the Respondent (first Wife), the first Wife viz., the Respondent is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance as per decision in Ansuiya Bai Vs. Nawaslal reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. 2959 (M.P.). 32. The specific stand taken on behalf of the Respondent/Wife is that the Revision Petitioner has taken back the lands given to her and now she is in doldrums and is in a predicament also. Her stand is that she is unable to maintain herself. 33. It is true that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 before the trial Court has stated that Umandi land is in her possession which belongs to her husband being ancestrally and further in the panchayat held on 11.11.1999, it is correct that the said land has been given her for maintenance etc. Therefore, it is evident that the Respondent/Wife has been in enjoyment of the ancestral house of the Revision Petitioner/Husband's father and also that she has been in possession of Umandi land though it is stated on behalf of the Revision Petitioner before this Court in the present Revision that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has taken back the land etc. 34. Therefore, it is evident that the Respondent/Wife has been in enjoyment of the ancestral house of the Revision Petitioner/Husband's father and also that she has been in possession of Umandi land though it is stated on behalf of the Revision Petitioner before this Court in the present Revision that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has taken back the land etc. 34. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to pertinently point out that no cultivation accounts or Adangals have been filed before the trial Court to show that the Respondent/Wife has been in enjoyment of + acre of land and + share of lands in an extent of 4.83 acres etc. Though she has admitted before the trial Court in her evidence that she is residing in the ancestral house of her Husband's Father, now, before this Court, it is pleaded on her behalf before this Court that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has taken back the land etc. On behalf of the Petitioner/Husband in the Additional typed set of papers filed, a reliance is placed on an 'OTHI DEED' dated 07.10.1994 and compromise deed dated 11.11.1999, it is to be pointed out by this Court that the othi deed and compromise deed are not registered one. But, when the Respondent/Wife has taken a clear cut stand before this Court (in the Criminal Revision) that she has been deprived of the land given to her in panchayat for her enjoyment etc. and now she is unable to maintain herself, since she has no independent income of her own and also that when the 'Revision Petitioner/Husband (R.W.1) has admitted his second marriage with one Muneeswari and also when he is living with second wife Muneeswari and her three children, it is clear that the Revision Petitioner/Husband has neglected to maintain the Respondent/Wife (first wife) and moreover when the Revision Petitioner/Husband has contracted second marriage with Muneeswari, then in Law that it is a good/sufficient ground enabling the Respondent/Wife (first wife) to leave away from the Petitioner/Husband or to live separately from him and when he sufficiently well off and earning an income of more than Rs.2 lakhs per year from his business and also in possession of Nanja and Punja lands, then this Court holds that he cannot wriggle out of his moral and legal obligation to pay the monthly maintenance amount. 35. 35. In the light of the detailed qualitative discussions and also on going through the order passed by the first Appellate Court in Crl.R.C.No.11 of 2006 dated 20.08.2007, this Court is of the considered view that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is statutorily bound to maintain the Respondent/Wife and he cannot seek umbrage under the compromise agreement dated 11.11.1999 (arrived at between the parties in the present of panchayatdars) and therefore, on the basis of Equity, Fair play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, this Court directs the Revision Petitioner/Husband to pay a sum of Rs.450/- per month towards maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any paid already by him. The Petitioner/Husband is further directed to pay the monthly maintenance to the Respondent/Wife on or before 5th day of every English calender month, failing which liberty is granted to the Respondent/Wife to initiate appropriate proceedings before the trial Court for realisation of the balance amount in the manner known to law. 36. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed with the above said directions.