Judgment : The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The respondent herein / wife has filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.10 of 2006, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupatthur, against the revision petitioner herein / husband and claimed maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for her and her two minor children. The respondent/wife further stated that the revision petitioner/husband married her on 27.03.1991 at Tirupatthur as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, her parents had provided 25 sovereigns of gold jewelleries and a motorcycle besides all household articles. Out of wedlock, she gave birth to two children, viz, Mounika and Lokeswaran. The respondent further stated that her husband was employed at Madras Port Trust and earning Rs.40,000/-, including overtime. Besides he is also involved in real estate business and earning Rs.50,000/-per month. Her husband owns a house in Chromepet which is worth about Rs.50,00,000/-. Further, her husband has developed illicit relationship with his brother's wife and the same was questioned by her. Hence, the respondent/wife, minor children were driven from the matrimonial house. Hence, the maintenance case has been filed. 2. The revision petitioner herein / husband has filed a counter statement. The revision petitioner admits the marriage and also admits that the two children were born through him. He submitted that his wife had developed illicit relationship with third parties and on that ground he has already initiated necessary steps for the custody of his children and also divorce from his wife. At the time of marriage, her father gave 10 sovereigns of gold jewelleries to his wife. Further, he was given 2 sovereigns of gold chain and a bracelet. His wife had taken all jewels from the matrimonial home while leaving the house. The revision petitioner/husband denied all the averments in the maintenance case about illicit relationship with his brother's wife. The revision petitioner further stated that he had taken a loan from his Department and constructed a house in Chromepet and he pays the installment on the loan regularly every month. The revision petitioner further denied that he is earning Rs.40,000/-including overtime. The revision petitioner further stated that his wife has developed illicit relationship with one Nirmal, who is residing in front of his house at Chromepet. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed necessary issues. The revision petitioner further denied that he is earning Rs.40,000/-including overtime. The revision petitioner further stated that his wife has developed illicit relationship with one Nirmal, who is residing in front of his house at Chromepet. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed necessary issues. On the side of the wife, two witnesses were examined and twelve documents were marked, viz., marriage invitation, school fees particulars for two minor children, birth certificate, house tax receipt and landed property in the name of her father-in-law. On the side of the husband, three witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked, viz, letter from Ramakrishna Vidyalaya school, doctor's prescription letter, letter written by the minor children to their father, school fees remittance particulars, ration card etc. 4. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that she and her two minor children were driven out from the matrimonial home on 05.11.2003. She further adduced evidence that her husband/respondent has developed an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. She deposed that the second minor daughter is aged about 14 years and studying in IXth standard and the third minor son Logeswaran is aged about 11 years and studying in VIth standard. She further adduced evidence that her husband is working at the Port Trust and receiving a salary of Rs.40,000/-per month including overtime; besides he is doing real estate and share market business. 5. P.W.2 had adduced evidence that P.W.1 is his sister and the petitioners 2 and 3 are her children. The rest of the evidence of P.W.2 was on similar lines to the evidence of P.W.1. 6. R.W.1, husband of P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the marriage was solemnized between P.W.1 and himself on 27.03.1991. Out of wedlock, two children were born in the year 1992 and 1995 respectively. He further adduced evidence that he constructed a house at Chromepet in the year 1996. He admitted his two children in a reputed school. Both the children were very fond of him. After marriage, he educated his wife upto post graduation. He further stated that frequently he had received phone calls and while attending the same, there was no response from the other end. Immediately, his wife pulled his collar and questioned him as to why he attended the phone call. On 05.11.2003 her brother came to his residence and took his wife and children away. He further stated that frequently he had received phone calls and while attending the same, there was no response from the other end. Immediately, his wife pulled his collar and questioned him as to why he attended the phone call. On 05.11.2003 her brother came to his residence and took his wife and children away. He further adduced evidence that his wife was always noticing the opposite house, wherein one Nirmal was residing. He deposed that he found his wife always talking to the said Nirmal through phone. On one occasion, when he knocked the bedroom door both his wife and Nirmal emerged out of the room. R.W.1 stated that he is not involved in any business except his office work and his wife was employed at a School as teaching staff and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. 7. R.W.2 had adduced evidence that he is brother of R.W.1 and the rest of the evidence of RW.2 was on similar lines to the evidence of R.W.1. 8. R.W.3 had adduced evidence that R.W.1 had not tortured his wife in any way. He further adduced evidence that he is also a co-employee working in the Port Trust and does not know the salary of R.W.1. 9. On considering the evidence of both parties and on perusing the documents marked by them and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupatthur directed the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the minor children, this amount consisting of monthly maintenance and education expenses of two minor children. The first petitioner/wife's prayer was rejected. 10. Hence, the first petitioner/wife has filed revision in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2010 and the husband has filed a revision in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2011. Both revisions were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupatthur. The learned judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the trial Court order passed the common orders are as follows:- The learned judge directed the revision petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2011 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to his minor children and further directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-to his wife viz., Maheswari as monthly maintenance from the date of filing the maintenance case before the trial Court. As such, both the revisions were partly allowed. 11. As such, both the revisions were partly allowed. 11. Against the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.3 of 2010, the revision petitioner/husband has filed the above revision. 12. The highly competent counsel for the revision petitioner/husband vehemently argued that the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive any monthly maintenance from the revision petitioner since she is a teaching staff at a high school in Tirupatthur and drawing sufficient salary and therefore, she is an earning member and as such, she can maintain herself. He further submits that the respondent/wife has developed an illicit relationship with one Nirmal, who was residing in front of the petitioner's house at Chromepet. The learned counsel further submits that on one occasion the revision petitioner found them in his bedroom. Further, the respondent had made a false allegation against the revision petitioner that he is an alcoholic and having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, which is nothing but a hypothetical assumption and there is no substantial evidence whatsoever. The very competent counsel further contended that the respondent's brother came to the revision petitioner's house and took the revision petitioner's wife with two children, but the revision petitioner has not driven them out from the house as alleged. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is getting a sum of Rs.12,000/-after deductions. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2011. 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusing the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2010, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said impugned order. This Court is of the further view that there is no substantial evidence to back the claim of the revision petitioner that his wife has developed illicit relationship with one Nirmal and therefore, this Court does not accept the said contentions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Further, the revision petitioner had stated that the respondent/wife is working in a high school at Tirupatthur and as such, she is earning a monthly salary, but in order to prove the same, neither any documents were marked nor was the employer examined. Therefore, this contention is also not acceptable. Further, the revision petitioner had stated that the respondent/wife is working in a high school at Tirupatthur and as such, she is earning a monthly salary, but in order to prove the same, neither any documents were marked nor was the employer examined. Therefore, this contention is also not acceptable. This Court is of the further view that the marriage was an admitted one and both spouses are separated and hence the revision petitioner herein is duty bound to extend monetary support for the maintenance of his wife and children. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision. 14. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.3 of 2010, on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Tirupatthur, dated 09.08.2011, reversing the order passed in M.C.No.10 of 2006, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupatthur, dated 22.04.2010 is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.