Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 98 (MAD)

R. G. Raj v. Meenakshi

2015-01-09

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment 1. By consent, the Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, minor children. The first respondent herein has filed M.C.No.13 of 2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. 3. The trial Court, after contest, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3 by way of maintenance, vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed. 4. A perusal of the materials available on record in the form of typed set of papers, would disclose that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized about 13 years back and out of wedlock, the respondents 2 and 3 have born. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is running a business in crackers by pledging her gold jewels, and he also started leading a wayward life without contributing anything to the family. The first respondent further alleged that the petitioner had also developed intimacy with an employee and therefore, totally neglected to maintain the family. The first respondent would further contend that the petitioner is owning a house worth Rs.20 lakhs and he is also earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by leasing out to the third party and out of business, he is earning a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month, and therefore, prayed for maintenance. 5. The revision petitioner who is arrayed as respondent before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi, has filed his counter admitting the marriage and the parentage of the children and would submit that the first respondent is never in the habit of caring him and most of the times, she used to be staying in her parental home and she also neglected to maintain the children and it is the revision petitioner who is regularly taking the children to the school and also paying school fees and other incidental expenses. 6. The allegation regarding the revision petitioner having intimacy with his employee is also specifically denied, in the counter and it is submitted that in any event, the amount of maintenance claimed by the respondents is exorbitant. 7. During the course of trial, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. 6. The allegation regarding the revision petitioner having intimacy with his employee is also specifically denied, in the counter and it is submitted that in any event, the amount of maintenance claimed by the respondents is exorbitant. 7. During the course of trial, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The revision petitioner / respondent therein, examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. 8. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidences, found that the revision petitioner has filed HMOP No.23 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi for divorce and the same would indicate that he is not prepared to live with the first respondent. The trial Court further found that though it is claimed by the revision petitioner that he has closed his business 2 + years back, it has not been substantiated and taking into consideration of the fact that being the lawfully wedded husband and the father of two minor children, is bound to maintain the family and has awarded the maintenance as stated above. 9. Mr.G.Marimuthu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / husband of the first respondent, would vehemently contend that the first respondent has neglected to give company and maintain the family as dutiful wife and since she has deliberately neglected without any reasonable or justifiable cause, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 10. In so far as the maintenance awarded to the minor children are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that he is prepared to take custody of the children and as on date, he is paying the school fees, uniform expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, a sum of Rs.3,000/- each awarded to the minor children in any event, is exorbitant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has also deposited the part of arrears of maintenance and also having Fixed Deposit for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the first respondent and the said fact may be been taken into consideration for reducing the quantum of maintenance. 11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has also deposited the part of arrears of maintenance and also having Fixed Deposit for Rs.50,000/- in favour of the first respondent and the said fact may be been taken into consideration for reducing the quantum of maintenance. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has totally neglected to maintain the family and he is owning a house and earning a decent income by way of rental income and he has also developed intimacy with his employee, and the trial court, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the quantum of maintenance and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision. 12. A perusal of the impugned judgment would disclose that the petitioner has made a deposit with Karur Vysya Bank by means of a Fixed Deposit in the name of the first respondent and the same is marked as Ex.R1, and he has also paid school fees for his children and the receipts are marked as Ex.R2. The Account Statement of the petitioner maintained in the Karur Vysya Bank is also marked as Ex.R3. The above said documents would disclose that the petitioner is paying school fees for children and also made a deposit in favour of his wife. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, on instructions, made an assurance before this Court that the deposit made under Ex.R1 will not be foreclosed prematurely and as and when the amount mature, it will be paid to the first respondent. The said submission is placed on record. 14. A perusal of the exhibits marked on behalf of the respondents herein would disclose that the revision petitioner has filed a petition for divorce in HMOP No.23 of 2013 and the same is pending adjudication and he is also running a business in fire crackers and the same is exhibited under Ex.P4. Though it is pointed out by the revision petitioner that he has closed his business long back, it cannot be believed for the reason that the petitioner would not carry on without any avocation. Though it is pointed out by the revision petitioner that he has closed his business long back, it cannot be believed for the reason that the petitioner would not carry on without any avocation. This Court, taking into consideration the above documents, especially the fact that as per Ex.R2, he is paying the school fees and meeting out other incidental expenses, is of the view that a sum of Rs.3,000/- each awarded to the respondents 2 and 3 herein require modification. So far as the award of Rs.4,000/- awarded to the first respondent is concerned, admittedly she is a homemaker without any employment and considering the present inflationary trend, the said amount cannot be said to be exorbitant. 15. In the result, the sum of Rs.4,000/- ordered to be paid to the first respondent by way of monthly maintenance as ordered by the trial Court is confirmed, and so far as the amount of Rs.3,000/- each ordered to be paid to respondents 2 and 3 minor children of the revision petitioner and the first respondent, the same requires modification and it is reduced to a sum of Rs.2,000/- each. 16. The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, subject to the above modification. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.