This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 06.04.2010 in Crl.R.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2.It is averred in the petition that the first respondent married the petitioner and the first respondent was living separately with two children and the petitioner has been residing with his one son. The first respondent filed petition under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to maintain herself and her two children and without any reason, she has been living separately. She has sufficient means to maintain herself and children. She is still living in the matrimonial home. The petitioner herein is employed as Typist and his carry home salary is Rs.1,631/-. The Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs.1,250/- each for respondents 1 and 3 and Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent.
3.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, without properly appreciating the evidence, confirmed the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and therefore, this petitioner has come forward with this criminal original petition, seeking to set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent, without any sufficient reason, has separated from her husband; that she is having sufficient means to maintain herself and that the petitioner has also retired now and without taking note of the carry home salary, the Sessions Judge, confirmed the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, without applying judicial mind.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, contends that both the Courts below, after analysing the evidence and submissions, have rightly found that the respondents are in a position to maintain themselves and awarded maintenance and there is no abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the order of the Principal Sessions Judge does not require any interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
6.The fact remains that the petitioner and first respondent got married and lived together and they were blessed with three children out of the wedlock. Though they were separated for some time after begotten of two children, they joined together and were again blessed with another child. Therefore, the Principal Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the allegations made against each others, before their reunion and gave birth to a third child. From the evidence, the Principal Sessions Judge also found that the petitioner left the house with one of his son and has been living separately. It is not the case that the first respondent refused to live together with the husband or they have been living separately by consent. As already pointed out, the petitioner left the house and has been residing separately. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was working as Typist and being Typist in government office, the Principal Sessions Judge has fixed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/- in the absence of any document filed on the side of the petitioner. The maintenance amount awarded to the respondents 1 to 3 are also very reasonable. The learned Principal Sessions Judge has rightly confirmed the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under 482 of Cr.P.C.
7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
8.It is represented that as per the order of this Court, the petitioner deposited Rs.10,500/-, being part of the maintenance amount before the trial Court. It is also represented that some more amount has also been paid. It is made clear that the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to the maintenance amount as ordered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, less the amount already paid by the petitioner.
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram..