JUDGMENT 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein / wife has filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.58 of 2009, on the file of II Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai against the revision petitioner herein / husband, stating that revision petitioner married her on 26.01.1978, at Vandavasi, as per Hindu Customs and Rites. Out of wedlock, she gave birth to three children. She further stated that her husband had developed illicit relationship with a lady viz., Nirmala and hence he deserted her. Further, her husband is a womanizer and is an alcoholic. Her husband is working at Reserve Bank Staff Training College, as an office attender, and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Besides this, her husband is also getting rental income and also gets income through his finance business. In total, he is earning Rs.55,000/- per month. Hence, the respondent herein has filed the maintenance case and has sought monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 2. The husband has filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. The respondent had admitted the date of marriage, mode and place of marriage. It was submitted that the first son, Sridharan had been given on adoption to his elder sister, Dhanalakshmi. The second son had drowned while taking bath in sea. The third child is the daughter and staying with her mother. The respondent further stated that the divorce petition had been filed in I.D.O.P.No.1634 of 2007, on the file of I Additional Family Court, Chennai and the case has been compromised after payment of consideration to the petitioner/wife. The respondent denied the allegation levelled against him by his wife that he is an alcoholic and that he had illicit relation with one Nirmala. The respondent further stated that his gross income was a sum of Rs.24,390/-, but he does not get any other income through any other business as alleged. The respondent further stated that without his knowledge, the petitioner has taken baptism and converted from Hinduism to Christianity. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the learned judge had framed necessary issues. The respondent further stated that without his knowledge, the petitioner has taken baptism and converted from Hinduism to Christianity. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the learned judge had framed necessary issues. On the side of the wife, the wife was examined as P.W.1 and she had marked ten exhibits viz., marriage invitation, joint photo, paper publication, pawn broker receipts for pledging the jewels, settlement of hospital bills, letter sent to the employer, letter from "Jesus Calls", photo showing conversion into Christianity, identity card of respondent. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as R.W.1 and 13 documents were marked viz., T.C. of respondent's son, community certificate, family card, letter from Anthony to the respondent, complaint from local residents made against the petitioner, pay slip, electric charges, copy of divorce petition, baptism certificate, copy of the complaint before the All Women Wing Police Station against the petitioner. 4. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that her husband married her on 26.01.1978 at Vandavasi, as per Hindu Customs and Rites. Out of wedlock, she gave birth to three children. She further stated that her husband had developed illicit relationship with one Nirmala and deserted her. She deposed that her husband was in the habit of consuming alcohol and torturing her physically and mentally by using abusive language. P.W.1 further stated that her husband was working as an Office Assistant at Regional Director's Office of RBI and earning Rs.55,000/-per month through his employment, finance business and rental income. In support of her evidence, she had marked the above mentioned documents. 5. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that his gross income was Rs.24,390/- per month and he owns a house at Chennai. He further adduced evidence that except his salary, he has no other income. R.W.1 further stated that his wife gave birth to three children and the first son was given in adoption to his eldest sister and the second son had died unnaturally and the married daughter was deserted by her husband, due to some misunderstanding between them. His daughter has now filed divorce petition and she is in a deserted condition. 6. R.W.1 further stated that his wife gave birth to three children and the first son was given in adoption to his eldest sister and the second son had died unnaturally and the married daughter was deserted by her husband, due to some misunderstanding between them. His daughter has now filed divorce petition and she is in a deserted condition. 6. On considering the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them and on hearing the arguments laid down by both parties, the learned judge directed the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance to his wife from the date of filing the maintenance case, on or before the 5th of every succeeding English calendar month. 7. Against the said order and decree passed in the maintenance case, the above revision has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the respondent herein has filed petition for getting maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and as such, the maintenance case in M.C.No.58 of 2009 is a parallel proceeding and therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable under law. The revision petitioner has not deserted his wife, but she had left the house and living separately. The learned counsel further contended that the learned judge had erroneously taken the view that the revision petitioner herein had forcibly sent his wife from the matrimonial home. The respondent's brother Saravanan had married the revision petitioner's sister Rajeswari and his sister had initiated criminal proceedings against her husband. Therefore, the respondent herein had initiated the maintenance case against the revision petitioner in order to harass him. The learned counsel further submitted that the neighbours in the residential area had levelled a complaint against the respondent herein stating that the respondent is an arrogant lady. The petitioner's gross income is a sum of Rs.24,390/-. After statutory deductions, he is getting around Rs.15,000/- which is not sufficient to maintain his wife. The revision petitioner is an heart patient and had undergone a major operation. As such, his nett salary after deduction of all expenses incurred, including medical expenses, is not sufficient even to look after himself. The respondent's intention is to only harass the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is an heart patient and had undergone a major operation. As such, his nett salary after deduction of all expenses incurred, including medical expenses, is not sufficient even to look after himself. The respondent's intention is to only harass the revision petitioner. Hence, she had levelled a complaint before the employer of the revision petitioner and before the Human Rights Commission, but the complaints were not proved against him. Actually, the petitioner/respondent lived under one room and she herself deserted the petitioner and left the matrimonial home and therefore, the maintenance case is not maintainable. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the revision petitioner married the respondent on 26.01.1978 at Vandavasi as per Hindu Customs and Rites. Out of wedlock, she gave birth to three children. The revision petitioner has developed illicit relationship with one Nirmala, the uncle's daughter of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner frequently picked quarrels with the respondent, in an alcoholic mood, and tortured the respondent physically and mentally. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent the respondent forcibly out of the house. Now, the respondent is in a deserted condition without any financial support to meet her daily needs. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner receives a gross salary of Rs.24,390/-per month. Therefore, as per the top Court's decision, the respondent is entitled to receive 1/3rd of the income of her husband i.e., Rs.8,000/- approximately, but the trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the trial Court order is not prejudicial to the revision petitioner herein. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife is an admitted fact. The respondent is a dutiful wife and she rendered adequate service to the revision petitioner. Further, the respondent did her service to her children as a dutiful mother. The petitioner has unnecessarily made false allegations against the respondent herein with the intention to evade payment of maintenance. The respondent, being the aggrieved person lodged a complaint before the All Women Wing Police Station and before the employer of the petitioner and Human Rights Commission for getting justice. Therefore, the lodging of complaint cannot be taken as a wrong act of the respondent. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner had undergone a major operation for his heart ailment. Therefore, the lodging of complaint cannot be taken as a wrong act of the respondent. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner had undergone a major operation for his heart ailment. In order to prove the same, the medical records had been marked as Ex.R12. The revision petitioner had received a sum of Rs.4,795/- after all deductions. Out of this income, he has to meet all the needs to maintain his daily life including medical expenses. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had received Rs.24,390/-as gross salary, but he did not disclose the statutory deductions. The statuary deductions may not be more than 1/3rd of his gross income. Further, the revision petitioner is entitled to get medical reimbursement from his employer. 12. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the order and decreetal order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the revision petitioner has produced the payslip as exhibit as R7, but however, no light had been thrown to prove the amount of statutory deductions and there is also no detailed discussion and findings about the nett income of the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner had marked medical records to show that he had undergone treatment for heart ailment. Therefore, this Court reduces the monthly maintenance from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.3,500/-as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. Therefore, this Court directs the revision petitioner to pay the arrears of monthly maintenance from the date of filing the maintenance case, i.e., 12.02.2009 till July 2013, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, as per this Court's findings. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has to pay the monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,500/- on every succeeding English calendar month on or before the 5th of every month, by way of deposit before the trial Court or by direct payment to the respondent either by demand draft or cash. 13. In the result, the above revision is partly allowed. Consequently, the order and decreetal order passed in M.C.No.58 of 2009, on the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 17.09.2011 is modified. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.