Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2934 (MAD)

K. S. Murugesan v. M. Kalavathi

2016-08-19

P.DEVADASS

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The husband of the respondent aggrieved by the direction of the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai issued in M.C. No. 62 of 2004 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent, this revision has been made. 2. The revision petitioner and the respondent are spouses. They were blessed with a son. Actually, it is a police family. The revision petitioner joined in the State Police Service and ultimately, became an Inspector of Police. His son followed his suit as he became a police constable. 3. There were matrimonial discordance between the revision petitioner and the respondent. That led to their separation. She sought for maintenance from him in the Family Court, Madurai in M.C. No. 62 of 2004 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In a parallel matrimonial proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by way of interim maintenance, she seems to have been awarded Rs.1,000/- per month. In M.C. No. 62 of 2004, the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai taking into account the said Rs.1,000/- and considering the financial position of both, ultimately, ordered payment at Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to her from the date of petition. Since it is not to the liking of the husband, he has directed this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the son has become a police constable. The respondent can very well depend upon him. Further, she is living in affluent circumstances. On the other hand, the revision petitioner became an Ex-Policeman, a Government pensioner. What is he is getting by way of pension is insufficient to pull the days. In such circumstances, heavy financial burden has been imposed upon him by the Family Court, Madurai. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that their son has been married and he has to take care of his own family. There is no financial support from him. There was a categorical finding by the trial Court that she did not now possess any money or property. She is struggling for wherewithal and what was ordered by the trial Court itself is very less. The revision petitioner battling even as against that amount is cruel. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any legality, proprietary and regularity. 6. She is struggling for wherewithal and what was ordered by the trial Court itself is very less. The revision petitioner battling even as against that amount is cruel. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any legality, proprietary and regularity. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and the materials on record. 7. Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeks to redress the grievance of wife, children, parents, who are suffering out of vagrancy and those who are expected to maintain them refused or neglected to maintain them. 8. In this case, it was not established that the respondent has sufficient financial capacity or source of her own to sustain herself. 9. The revision petitioner was an Inspector of Police. He has also been decently paid. Now, he has been superannuated. It is an inescapable incidence of Government service. As per Government Rules, he is receiving pension. Besides the pension, he had received death cum retirement, gratuity, his G.P.F. accumulation, cash value of his unspent surrender leave, family benefit amount and commuted portion of pension amount. Whenever there is increase in D.A. (Dearness Allowance) benefit on price index there will increase in his pension amount. The Payment of pension to him is perennial in nature, so also his liability to pay his wife. 10. The Ex-Inspector cannot compel his wife to seek maintenance from present police constable/son. In this way, the revision petitioner cannot disown or avoid his marital and legal duty cast upon him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 11. Now-a-days, Rs.3,000/- per month is quite a meagre amount. But he refuses to pay even that amount to his wife. Actually, the Ex-Police Inspector sheds crocodile tears. I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any legality. 12. In fine, this revision fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.