vs.
Challenging and impugning the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No,2, Sangagiri, in M.C.No.2/2004, these criminal revision cases are focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:-
(a) The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.921 of 2006, namely, Jeyakanthan, and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.685 of 2009, namely, Akila, got married on 7.5.2003 as per the Hindu Customs and Rites. It is the contention of Akila that there were dowry harassments etc., at the matrimonial home, thereby she was not made to live peacefully there and rift also resulted in the matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, she filed the application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband-Jeyakanthan.
(b) Whereas, Jeyakanthan would resist the claim of Akila on the main ground that there was no consummation of the marriage; the wife was not looking after his parents and it was she who is responsible for the separation between the two. It is also the contention of Jeyakanthan that the wife is having enough source of income; her father is well off; she is capable of earning huge amount, as she is having M.A.,H.D.C. Qualification and whereas, he is jobless and having no means to pay maintenance.
(c) Before the Magistrate enquiry was conducted. During enquiry, the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.685 of 2009 examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 was marked. The husband was examined himself as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked.
(d) Ultimately, the Magistrate awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.400/- payable by the husband in favour of the wife.
3. Animadverting upon such order of the Magistrate, the wife as well as the husband filed separately these revision cases.
4. It is the grievance of the wife that the awarding of Rs.400/- per month is too meagre and she will not be able to live with that amount.
5. However, it is the contention of the husband that the wife is not at all entitled to get any maintenance and in such a case, her claim for enhanced maintenance is totally untenable.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
7. A plain reading of the order of the lower Court, coupled with the records available, would demonstrate and display that the lower Court, after considering the pros and cons of the matter, arrived at the conclusion that the father of the wife is well off and the wife also is capable of earning sufficiently. However, taking into consideration the fact that as on the date of passing of the order, the husband was not proved to be having any job, the Magistrate awarded only a meagre maintenance of Rs.400/- per month payable by the husband in favour of the wife.
8. The learned counsel for the husband would submit that the wife was not at all co-operative with the husband for consummating the marriage; from day one of the marriage, she was not cordial with the husband; and it was she, who is responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship, for which, the husband cannot be found fault with for having allegedly neglected to maintain her.
9. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the husband that if at all the husband is having means and the wife is not having any means, the question of invoking
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would arise, at the instance of the wife, however, in this case, the wife had wrongly invoked it and the Magistrate also has wrongly passed such an order.
10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the wife, drawing the attention of this Court to the various portions of the evidence, would develop his argument to the effect that the wife even though is having educational qualification, nevertheless, she is not working and in such a case, the husband cannot compel her to go for some job and earn; on the other hand, as on the date of filing of the M.C., the husband was working in Vinayaga Mission Kirubanandhavariyar Medical College and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month; however deliberately for the purpose of wriggling out of his liability to pay maintenance, he resigned his post; however, but he started working in some other institution.
11. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the common or garden principle that a hale and healthy husband is expected to strain his every nerve to see that he is earning and paying maintenance to his wife. Simply because the wife is having educational qualification, the husband would not be justified in taking a plea that the wife should work and earn her livelihood and that he would not pay any maintenance to his wife.
12. Here admittedly, the husband was working as lecturer in Vinayaga Mission Kirubanandha Variyar Medical College at the time of filing of the M.C. However, it is the finding of the lower Court that subsequently, he was terminated from service. Still law enjoins the husband to toil and moil like anything and earn and pay maintenance to his wife. No doubt, the core question arises as to whether a wife can deliberately refrain from working and eking out her livelihood.
13. It is really a ticklish problem and social problem too. It is sheer common sense that normally a wife, who is not in the company of her husband, for her own livelihood she could work and earn. But she cannot be compelled to work and earn her livelihood and that would amount to coercing her to do something, which she does not incline to do. The lower Court also, from the deposition of the wife, observed that even though the wife is having educational qualifications, so to say, M.A., H.D.C., she is not willing to work and that at a later point of time she might choose to work. When such is the stand of the wife, the Court cannot draw any adverse inference as against her and reject her prayer for getting maintenance.
14. There is nothing to indicate that the husaband took any action under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which contemplates that if a marriage is not consummated, it is open for the husband to approach the matrimonial forum, so as to get the marriage declared as void. But, he has not chosen to do so. It appears that there is one criminal case also pending relating to dowry harassment as against the husband, initiated by the wife.
15. It is a well settled proposition that only in the regular proceedings, it has to be decided as to who is actually responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship and in a summary proceedings like the one under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C, such broad based rowing enquiry cannot be conducted.
16. Here, the lower Court also correctly viewed that the husband is liable to pay maintenance to the wife, but it would award only a meagre sum of Rs.400/- per month, which, in my opinion could have been something more. According to the formula adopted by the lower Court, per day it comes to Rs.13/- or so, which, by no standard, can be taken to be appropriate and apposite. A lady is entitled to live in commensurate with the status of her husband. Since at present, there is nothing to indicate that the husband got reemployment somewhere and earning and there is a finding by the Magistrate that his income could be Rs.1200/- per month, I am of the view that awarding a maintenance at the rate of Rs.20/- per day would meet the ends of justice.
17. It is quite obvious that in this present day cost of living, even with that amount, a lady cannot keep the wolf from the door; keep the pot boiling and make both ends meet. Even then, in the absence of any clinching evidence about the monthly salary of the husband, awarding marginal increase in maintenance by enhancing the maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.600/-per month would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, Crl.R.C.No.685 of 2009 is allowed and Crl.R.C.No.921 of 2006 is dismissed.
Msk To The Judicial Magistrate No,2, Sangagiri