This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order passed passed by the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil dated 02.09.2010 in Criminal Revision Petition No.30 of 2007 confirming the order of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District dated 05.06.2007 in M.C.No.9 of 2006.
2.The petitioner husband challenges the order of the District Judge awarding maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the wife and Rs.300/- per month to the minor child.
3.It is averred in the petition that the first respondent wife has been living with the second child separately without any justifiable reason; that the petitioner already settled 15 cents of land he purchased in favour of his wife and she gets income through it; that the petitioner is only a coolie with meagre income and therefore, he is not bound to pay any maintenance as decided by the District Judge. Therefore, the order of the District Judge is to be set aside.
4.No representation for the respondent.
5.This Court perused the entire papers filed along with the petition.
6.There is no dispute that the petitioner and the first respondent got married and they were blessed with two children and the wife and the second child are not being maintained by the petitioner/husband. The foremost contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent/wife had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. But, from the records, it is seen that there was dispute with respect to dowry demand and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no justifiable ground for refusal to live with him.
7.No doubt, the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and got a decree. That does not absolve the petitioner from maintaining his wife and child.
8.Another contention is that the petitioner settled 15 cents of land in favour of his wife and through that land, she gets income. Document has been filed to show that the property purchased by him has been settled in favour of his wife. But, there is no evidence as to whether the property so settled yields any income to the wife.
9.The petitioner is working as a Mason. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below that he gets not less than Rs.1,000/- per month as earning cannot be found fault with. There is no dispute that wife is not employed. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner is bound to maintain his wife and the child. The quantum fixed by the District Judge is also justifiable, considering the income of the petitioner as a Mason. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the District Judge. Therefore, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed.
10.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..