Animadverting upon the order dated 20.3.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, in M.C.No.12 of 2006, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. Compendiously and precisely, 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.12 of 2006 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 P4 were marked. The revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 along with one other witness as R.W.2 and Ex.R2 was marked.
(c) Ultimately, the Family Court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.1000/-per month in favour of each of the respondents herein, payable by the revision petitioner herein.
3.Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, at the time of submitting his arguements, would make a supine submission to the effect that he is restricting his argument only to the extent of reducing the quantum of maintenance.
4. The point for consideration is as to whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Magistrate is excessive or exorbitant and totally antithetical to the well established principles of law.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that even as per the findings of the Magistrate, the revision petitioner is having no source of income, as the finance company in which he was a partner was closed, as revealed by Ex.R1; he is only an agriculturists and he cannot pay that much maintenance to his wife and child.
7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that absolutely there is no income for the respondents and they have to depend upon the maintenance amount only; even though the revision petitioner produced documents to show that the finance company was closed, nevertheless the revision petitioner is still earning and he is having sufficient income.
8. A mere reading of the order of the lower Court and the records would reveal that the respondents herein, who are the seekers of maintenance, are having no source of income. They are in cash strapped, penurious and impecunious situation in life and they have to depend upon only the maintenance amount. Whereas, the husband even though would admit that he is owning lands, he has not given the details about the lands and furthermore, he would contend that those lands are dry lands and not fetching good income. Over and above that it is also his contention that the company in which he was a share holder was closed.
9. All the contentions raised by the revision petitioner would not be considered as worthy in the light of the common or garden principle of law that a hale and healthy male is expected to toil and moil like anything and strain his every nerve to see that he is earning and providing maintenance to his wife and children. It is also a well established principle that the wife and the child of an individual are entitled to live in commensurate with the status of the person concerned.
10. Here in this case, it is clear that the revision petitioner owns lands and he had the potentiality of being a member in a finance company and that demonstrates and discloses that the seekers of maintenance, namely, R1 and R2 are entitled to live in commensurate with his status.
11. It has to be seen as to whether the respondents could live without even having a sum of Rs.1000/- per month. The quantum of maintenance awarded, in stricto stunsu would come to Rs.30/- per day for each of the respondents. As such, for 30 days, it comes to Rs.900/-. Each of the respondents would require at least a sum of Rs.100/- per day to meet the travelling expenses, medical expenses and other unforeseen expenses. As such, the quantum of Rs.1000/- fixed by the lower Court in favour of each of the respondents, warrants no interference.
12. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly point out that the Magistrate was not justified in awarding maintenance from 20.7.2005, so to say, the date on which the earlier M.C. Petition was filed and dropped.
13. I could see considerable force in the said submission and virtually the Magistrate overreached himself in passing such a direction and consequently, the order of the Magistrate shall take effect from 28.7.2006, which happened to be the date of filing of the present M.C.12 of 2006.
G.RAJASURIA,J.
Msk
14. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.