Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2877 (MAD)

P. Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan v. Kavitha

2016-08-16

G.CHOCKALINGAM

body2016
ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Family Court, Dharmapuri, in F.C. M.C. No. 42 of 2012, awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the first and second respondents respectively and Rs. 50,000/- per year for the rent and other educational expenses. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent herein is the wife of the revision petitioner and the second petitioner herein is the daughter of the revision petitioner and they have filed a petition in F.C.M.C. No. 42 of 2014 before the Family Court, Dharmapuri, claiming maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Dharmapuri, after considering the evidence and the documents produced on either side, directed the revision petitioner/husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the first and second respondents respectively and also Rs. 50,000/- per year for the rent and other educational expenses from the date of petition and directed to pay the arrears amount within three months from the date of that order. Against the said order passed by the Family Court, Dharmapuri, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the revision petitioner/husband. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would contend that the trial Court, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the first and second respondents respectively and Rs. 50,000/- per year for the rent and other educational expenses, since the petitioner is working as a Conductor and getting basic salary of Rs. 5,500/- and out of the said amount, he has to maintain himself and his aged parents. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the order passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the criminal revision case may be allowed. 4. Even though notice was served on the respondents, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. 5. This Court perused the entire papers produced on the side of the petitioner. 6. On a reading of the order passed by the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court came to a conclusion that the revision petitioner/husband is working as a Conductor and receiving a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 5. This Court perused the entire papers produced on the side of the petitioner. 6. On a reading of the order passed by the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court came to a conclusion that the revision petitioner/husband is working as a Conductor and receiving a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The trial Court, keeping in mind the fact that the revision petitioner was working as a Conductor, properly fixed the salary of the revision petitioner as Rs. 20,000/- per month. That finding of the trial Court was not disputed on the side of the respondents herein. 7. In view of the above, this Court is also of the view that the revision petitioner is working as a Conductor and his monthly income comes to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is also not denied on the side of the respondents that the revision petitioner has to maintain himself and also his aged parents. 8. In view of the above, the prayer of the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- xxxx 9. On a perusal of the above, it is clear that the respondents themselves prayed for maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the first respondent herein and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the second respondent herein. But, the trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, finally awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the first respondent herein. Against which, the first respondent had not preferred any appeal or revision. Even though the respondents herein prayed for Rs. 2,000/- per month to the second respondent, the trial Court, without mentioning any reason, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, over and above the amount claimed in the petition, to the second respondent herein. 10. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that considering the income of the revision petitioner, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the first respondent which is reasonable one. Hence, the first respondent/wife is entitled maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and the second respondent/daughter is entitled maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month as claimed in the petition. Further, in this case, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per year towards rent and other educational expenses. If it is calculated per month, it comes to Rs. 5,000/- per month and the second respondent/daughter is entitled maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month as claimed in the petition. Further, in this case, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per year towards rent and other educational expenses. If it is calculated per month, it comes to Rs. 4,166.66, rounded to Rs. 4,170/- per month. Adding this amount along with the maintenance amount, which comes to Rs. 11,170/- (Rs. 5,000 + 2,000 + 4,170 = 11,170/-). Already, the trial Court fixed the income of the revision petitioner as Rs. 20,000/- per month. Hence, nearly more than half of the salary has to be paid to the revision petitioner and in the balance amount, the revision petitioner has to maintain himself and also his aged parents. 11. In view of this, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- per year awarded towards rend and other educational expenses is modified and reduced to Rs. 15,000/- per year. Further, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the trial Court towards maintenance to the second respondent is reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. 12. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed in part and the order of the trial Court regarding maintenance towards first respondent is confirmed and the maintenance towards second respondent is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 3,000/-. The rent and other educational expenses is reduced as Rs. 15,000/- per year from Rs. 50,000/- per year. Hence, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 respectively together with Rs. 15,000/- per year towards rent and other educational expenses. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.