Animadverting upon the order dated 15.06.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in M.C.No.36 of 2005, this criminal revision is focussed.
2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the respondent/wife herein is to the effect that the respondent and the petitioner herein got married on 12.09.2003 and thereafter, they lived together only for two or three months and even during such period, the husband after consuming liquor was in the habit of indulging in wife battering which caused rift in the matrimonial relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent and they do not have any child. Whereupon, the respondent herein filed M.C.No.36 of 2005 claiming maintenance and it was resisted by the revision petitioner herein.
3. During enquiry before the Magistrate Court, on the side of the wife/respondent herein, she examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On the side of the husband/petitioner herein, the respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 was marked.
4. Ultimately the learned Magistrate awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month payable by the husband to the wife with effect from the date of the petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Magistrate Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the sum and substance of the same would be to the effect that the Magistrate without appreciating the facts and figures involved in this case, simply awarded maintenance; the wife of her own accord did choose to leave the matrimonial home and started living in her parents home and purely for the purpose of camouflaging her own fault she has chosen to dish out the said M.C.No.36 of 2005 petition under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.; the earlier maintenance application was not prosecuted further by the respondent herein in view of the agreement between the parties and the payment of lump sum by the husband in favour of the wife. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and for dismissing the M.C.No.36 of 2005.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the learned Magistrates order is perverse in not considering the relevant facts before awarding maintenance in favour of the wife payable by the husband.
7. A bare perusal of the judgment of the Magistrate would exemplify and demonstrate, display and convey that the learned Magistrate thoroughly took into account the actual dispute which erupted between the husband and the wife. As per P.W.1, the wife, the apple of discard between P.W.1 and the husband emerged out of the latter's uncouth attitude towards her in beating her after consuming liquor and that he also deprived her of her jewels which she could get only at a later stage after due mediation. P.W.2, the mother of P.W.1 also would corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. The learned Magistrate considering the pro et contra arrived at the conclusion that the wife did not of her own accord leeft the matrimonial home and had chosen to stay at her parents house. Even though the husband simply alleged that the wife of her own accord left the matrimonial home, nonetheless, nothing has been placed before the Magistrate Court to point out that P.W.1 of her own accord left the husband's company.
8. Wherefore, I could see no perversity in the order in appreciating the oral evidence adduced on either side. Even though the husband would plead that there was an agreement between P.W.1 and himself that he parted with a huge sum, absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule, scintilla or dot of evidence to highlight and prove that he actually paid a lump sum in lieu of maintenance, in such a case, his liability to maintain his wife subsists. The contention that his wife is working as a teacher and earning was negatived by the learned Magistrate on the ground that such a version on the part of P.W.1 turned out to be his own ipsi dixit and I could see no incongruity or unreasonableness in the ratiocination adhered to by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the case of the husband and in the meanwhile believing the version of P.W.1.
9. It is a trite proposition of law that this Court in revision is not expected to interfere with the appreciation of evidence made by the lower Court, unless it is found to be perverse.
My discussion supra would demonstrate and display that the Magistrate was not unreasonable in his approach and he dealt with all the aspects of the matter and arrived at the conclusion that the husband alone was the root cause for the rift in the matrimonial relationship, which actuated and accentuated, propelled and impelled the wife to stay in her parents house.
10. The Magistrate also considered the financial wherewithal of the respondent and pointed out that at least he should pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month which by any standard cannot be labelled or termed as excessive or exorbitant. As such, I could see no merit in this criminal revision petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gms To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras