Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1006 (MAD)

Mohamed Rafique v. Muthu Begam

2015-02-18

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.80 of 2013 filed by the respondents herein under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said petition, after contest, came to be ordered on 23.06.2014 by directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner/minor daughter, aged about 2½ years. Challenging the legality of the same, the present revision is filed. 2. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court disclose the following facts: The petitioner married the first respondent on 04.09.2011 as per Islamic Rights and Customs and out of wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born. According to the first respondent, within 4 months from the date of marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry and though 70 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.2 lakhs and sreedhana articles of Rs.2 lakhs were given, the petitioner has pledged the said jewels for the purpose of improvement of his business. The first respondent would further state that since her parents were unable to concede to the demand of dowry, she was driven out of the matrimonial home, when she was in the stage of four months pregnancy and thereafter, she gave birth to the female child as the 2nd respondent. Even after the birth of the child, the petitioner has failed to take back the first respondent and the child and the first respondent also lodged a complaint on the file of the All Women Police Station, Theni District. 2.1. It is the further case of the first respondent that the petitioner herein is owning a house and also a car and he is also running a garment business, which gives employment to ten persons and adding salt to the wound, the petitioner has also pronounced 'Muthalaq' on 24.07.2013 and thereby putting the first respondent to a grave agony and mental hardship. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is a man of means and therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance. 2.2. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is a man of means and therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance. 2.2. The said petition for maintenance was strongly opposed by the petitioner by contending that after the birth of the child, without any rhyme or reason, the first respondent has left the company of the petitioner herein and left for her parental home and though he was ready and willing to live with her, on account of adamant attitude, the first respondent refused to live with him. It is denied in the counter that the petitioner herein, who is running a garment business and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and according to him, he is eking out his livelihood as a daily coolie in Kerala and is earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- only and in any event, the amount of maintenance claimed is exorbitant one and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 2.3. During the course of enquiry, the first respondent – the petitioner in the maintenance case examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioner, who was arrayed as respondent, examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. 2.4. The family Court, Madurai, on a consideration of averments made in the petition, counter statement and the oral and documentary evidences found that the petitioner failed to establish that 70 sovereigns of gold given to the first respondent at the time of marriage are continue to be in her custody and further taking into consideration, after the birth of the child, the first respondent left for her parental home and taking into consideration Ex.P8, which disclose the fact that the father of the first respondent had the house property at Madurai, forms the opinion that the respondent's family has considerable means and has immovable property and being the lawful wedded husband and biological father of the child, he is bound to pay the maintenance due to raise of essential commodities and inflationary trend, has directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent – minor girl child vide impugned order dated 23.06.2014. Feeling aggrieved, the present Revision Petition is filed. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the present Revision Petition is filed. 3. Mr.M.Seenisulthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the first respondent has failed to adduce any material to show that the petitioner is running a garment business and earning a sum of more than Rs.50,000/-, but, factually, he is eking out his livelihood only as a coolie in Kerala and even for the sake of arguments that his father is in possession of immovable properties, he has begotten other children and in any event, they are also entitled to share in the immovable properties and in the absence of any tenable materials, the quantum of maintenance is exorbitant and prays for modification of the same. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of R.W.1 and would submit that the petitioner has not even aware of the name of the child, which was born to him and it is also admitted by him that he is the owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN 59 9688, but he has not proved the same by adducing enough document to show that he is a name sake holder and some body is using it. The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that the revision petitioner is also pronounced Muthalaq without any time intervals and thereby prevented any mediatory effort and taking into consideration the overall submission of the petitioner, the family Court awarded the maintenance and considering the present trend of sprawling prices of essential commodities, it cannot be said to be exorbitant and prays for dismissal of this revision petition. 5. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the typed set of documents. 6. The petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and he would state that he was not aware of the giving of gold jewels and sreedhana articles at the time of marriage, but would admit in Ex.P2 - the agreement executed before the Jamath that giving of those articles have been mentioned and it was signed by his father as well as the President and Secretary of the Jamath. The revision petitioner would also admit the girl child was born to him, but he is not aware of her name and would further state that three months after the marriage, there was a difference of opinion between him and his wife and on the 4th month of pregnancy his wife – first respondent left for her parental home. 7. Insofar as his occupation is concerned, he denied the suggestion that he is running a business under the name and style of “United Garments” in his own house and having two sewing machines and employing ten persons and would further state that he is employing as a Salesman at Textile shop at Kerala and he is also doing part time job as Driver. 8. The petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1, would further admit that at the time of marriage, he was unemployed and would further add that he is receiving a sum of Rs.7,500/- from Kerala, but he did not produce any documents. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is admitted and so also the birth of the 2nd respondent – minor female child out of the said wedlock. The revision petitioner, on his own admission, would admit that as per Ex.P2, gold jewels and sreedhana articles were given and the said document was signed by his father and President and Secretary of the Jamath and it was his further admission that at the time of his marriage, he was unemployed and subsequently he was employed as a coolie in Kerala and he is also doing part time job as Driver, but he did not produce any documents regarding his income and to prove that his earnings are inadequate to meet his own expenses. 9. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that the petitioner has also pronounced Muthalaq, which is considered to be a sinful act and he should have pronounced Talaq by giving timely interval, so that mediatory efforts would have been possible, but, the petitioner on his own act, has prevented the mediatory efforts so as to enable the first respondent to join with her company. The petitioner, who was examined as R.W.1, has admitted in his evidence that he is earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- as a Salesman in a Textile Shop in Kerala and also doing part time job as a Driver and he did not produce any document to show that he was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- only. But the fact remains that even as per the own admission of the petitioner that he is earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month and he has not disclosed the fact of the income earned by him by doing part time job as a Driver. The family Court, taking into consideration of the fact that the first respondent continue to remain in her parental home and she has to maintain a minor girl child and taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances including the conduct of the revision petitioner, thought fit to award a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent – minor girl child towards monthly maintenance payable from the date of petition. 10.In the consideration of the Court, the amount of maintenance awarded by the family Court cannot considered to be an exorbitant, in the light of the inflationary trend, especially, periodical rise of essential articles. The conduct of the petitioner would also disclose that he is not interested in living with the first respondent and that is why, he has pronounced “Muthalaq”. 11. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity or reasons assigned by the family Court in awarding maintenance and finding no merits, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.