Challenging and impugning the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karaikal, in M.C.No.17 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. Compendiously and consciously, the facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-
(a) The respondents herein filed the M.C.No.17 of 2004 before the Magistrate Court under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance as against the revision petitioner herein. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner resisted the claim, the trial was conducted.
(b) During enquiry, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The revision petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked.
(c) Ultimately, the Magistrate awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of each of the respondents herein payable by the revision petitioner.
3. Animadverting upon such awarding of maintenance, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-
The Magistrate failed to take into account the plea put forth by the husband that the first respondent/wife is having illicit intimacy with her sister's husband and that she alone abandoned the matrimonial home and the revision petitioner would not be able to pay such a huge maintenance to the respondents.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Despite printing the name of the respondent's counsel, none appeared.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law on the part of the Magistrate in awarding maintenance as aforesaid.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the plea of the husband that the first respondent is living adultery with her brother-in-law was not considered by the Magistrate and that the maintenance awarded is on the higher side.
7. A plain reading of the order of the Magistrate and the perusal of the records, would display and disclose, demonstrate and evince that after scanning the evidence, the learned Magistrate objectively arrived at the conclusion that there is no shard or shred, miniscule or pint-sized, molecular or scintilla of evidence to prove that the first respondent-the wife of the revision petitioner is living in adultery or she had any illicit intimacy with her brother-in-law and as such this Court cannot interfere with the said finding of fact. If there is any real matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent herein it is for the petitioner to approach the matrimonial Court. In the summary proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate, from the available evidence, correctly arrived at the conclusion that the allegation of illicit intimacy, as put forth by the revision petitioner/husband is not established, warranting no interference by this Court.
8. Even in the grounds of revision at ground No.4, the revision petitioner put forth the argument that even assuming that his take home pay is Rs.12,000/-per month, he could not pay totally a sum of Rs.3000/-per month as maintenance towards the respondents, in view of the fact that he has to allegedly maintain his aged parents and himself.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is a diabetic patient and obviously and axiomatically he requires huge amount for his own maintenance.
10. At this juncture, I would like to call up and recollect the trite proposition that a male is expected to maintain his wife and minor child and that is his paramount duty and he cannot wriggle out of his liability by stating one reason or other. Here the finding of the Magistrate objectively is that the revision petitioner's disposable income itself is Rs.12,000/- per month and he has not chosen to gainsay such fact and he has also not produced any clinching evidence to the contrary that his income is low. The Magistrate awarded only a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of each of the respondents, which, even by phantasmogorical thoughts cannot be described or labelled as excessive or exorbitant. The wife and the child of an individual is entitled to live in commensurate with the person concerned.
11. Here the revision petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and he cannot shirk his responsibility of paying a sum of Rs.1500/- per month each in favour of the wife and child. Without even a sum of Rs.50/- per day, an individual cannot lead a normal life and keep the wolf from the door, keep the pot boiling and make both ends meet. Hence, I could see no infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.