Animadverting upon the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Chennai, in M.C.No.444 of 2003, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. Compendiously and precisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:
(a) The respondents herein filed the M.C.No.444 of 2003 as against the revision petitioner herein seeking maintenance. Whereupon the revision petitioner entered appearance and contested the matter.
(b) During enquiry, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his side.
(c) Ultimately, the Family Court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.1000/- in favour of the the first respondent herein, Rs.750/- in favour of the second respondent and Rs.500/- in favour of the third respondent herein, payable by the revision petitioner.
3.Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-
The lower Court failed to take into account the facts that R1 herein, by doing house hold work in eight houses, is earning substantially and in addition to that she is also having agricultural land and deriving income. The lower Court assumed as though the revision petitioner is running three auto rickshaws and earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month, even though no document has been produced by the seekers of maintenance to fortify their contention. However, the maintenance awarded is on the higher side.
4. At the hearing, there is no representation for the revision petitioner and he also remained absent. However, the learned counsel for the respondents herein is present and submitted his argument that absolutely there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the revision petitioner herein in filing this revision setting forth and putting forth certain imaginary grounds, when in fact, he deliberately settled his share in the Housing Board allotted property in favour of his sister and made his sister to stay there to the annoyance of the respondents herein and that he deliberately left the house without providing maintenance to the respondents. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissing the revision.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding maintenance by the lower Court.
6. The plain reading of the order of the Family Court as well as the available records would exemplify and demonstrate that there is nothing to indicate that the first respondent herein was responsible for the rift in the matrimonial life or that she voluntarily deserted her husband. It is the specific case that it was the revision petitioner herein who left the matrimonial home and that too after putting his sister in the house to the annoyance of the respondents herein.
7. It is trite proposition of law that the revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion different from the lower Court's findings on facts. Here, the Family Court, taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter and that too the documentary as well as the oral evidence arrived at the conclusion that the revision petitioner herein neglected the respondents herein from being maintained. There is also nothing to display and evince that R1 is earning any amount sufficiently. The very plea of the revision petitioner that the first respondent herein is working in eight houses and earning money could not be correct as it is quite antithetical to the preponderance of probabilities. A male, who is having his wife and two minor daughters cannot be heard to contend that he would not pay maintenance and that his wife is earning by doing house hold work in several houses. Ex facie and prima facie the revision petitioner's plea is unworthy of even being put forth before the Court.
8. Regarding the ability of the revision petitioner is concerned, the respondents being the maintenance seekers cannot be made to run from pillar to post to gather particulars about the financial wherewithal of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance. It is a common or garden principle that a hale and healthy male has to strain his every nerve to see that he is earning sufficiently to provide maintenance to his wife and minor children. Hence, in this view of the matter I could see no infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court and absolutely there is no perversity in the order impugned in this revision.
9. The compensation of Rs.1000/- awarded in favour of the wife, by no stretch of imagination could be taken as excessive and the maintenance of Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- awarded in favour of R2 and R3 respectively is also very moderate, warranting no interference by this Court. In order to keep the wolf from the door to keep the pot boiling and to make both ends meet, necessarily, the respondents require even amounts much more than what were awarded by the lower Court. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no revision for enhancement filed by the respondents therein, I would like to confirm the order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, I could see no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed.
msk To
1.The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai