Challenging and impugning the order dated 20.1.2006, passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.4 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. The gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-
The respondent herein preferred the M.C.No.4 of 2004, before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, seeking maintenance as against her husband-the revision petitioner herein, who filed H.M.O.P.No.463 of 2003, before the Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking divorce. The learned Family Court Judge conducted a joint trial and dismissed the H.M.O.P and awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.1000/- payable by the husband in favour of the wife. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of maintenance, this revision is focussed by the husband on various grounds, the nitty-gritty of them would run thus:-
The learned Judge failed to consider that it was the respondent, who deserted the revision petitioner and as such, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance. Ignoring the meagre monthly income of the revision petitioner herein, the Family Court Judge, awarded maintenance, which requires to be set aside.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Family Court Judge's order suffers from any perversity or non-application of mind in considering the status of the wife and also in fixing the responsibility for the rift in the matrimonial life on the husband and awarding the maintenance.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would set forth and put forth, highlight and spotlight the fact that the Family Court Judge simply ignored the owes of the revision petitioner, as he has been reeling under painful circumstances in life and he is responsible to maintain his widowed sister and another deserted sister and the non-cooperation on the part of the wife in adjusting with him in family life added fuel to the fire. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that he is only a call-taxi driver, earning meagre sum of Rs.2000/- as per Ex.P6 and all these facts have not been considered by the Family Court Judge while awarding maintenance.
6. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent, by way of pulverising and torpedoing the arguements as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner would advance and develops his arguments to the effect that the Family Court Judge, au fait with law and au courant with fact , appositely and properly, correctly and convincingly analysed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the wife in this case was not at fault, but it is the husband, who neglected to maintain her and he was solely responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship between the them.
7. The plain reading and perusal of the available records would display and demonstrate, evince and evidence that the very H.M.O.P. filed by the husband as against the wife for divorce was dismissed, after detailed discussion by the Family Court Judge concerned and as against which, there was no appeal, as such, in my opinion, the finding of the learned Judge has become final and it reached its finality.
8. It is a trite proposition of law that while dealing with the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is expected to take into consideration the negligence of the husband as well as the inability of the wife to maintain herself. In this case, both the ingredients have been considered by the Family Court Judge in detail, while dealing with the H.M.O.P itself in the common order and arrived at the conclusion that the wife is not having any blame worthy conduct in living apart from the husband. In fact, from the very narration of facts, it is clear that the husband is virtually shackled by his family members and he could not bestow his attention towards his personal welfare and also he could not maintain his wife. In fact, the wife also went to the extent of detailing and delineating, narrating and projecting that the husband, because of his family situation, requested and entreated the wife not to become pregnant. In my opinion, such a request emerged from the husband to the wife would tantamount to cruelty. As such, considering the various circumstances, the learned Family Court dismissed the divorce petition and awarded maintenance, warranting no interference by this Court.
9. It is a trite proposition of law that a hale and healthy male and in this case, the revision petitioner, being a taxi driver, is expected to strain himself and earn sufficiently to maintain his wife. In this case, the learned Magistrate simply awarded a meagre maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month payable by him and by no stretch of imagination it could be considered or interpreted as excessive or exorbitant. Hence, in these circumstances, I could see no merit in the revision. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Msk To The Family Court, Coimbatore