This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 22.06.2010 passed in Crl.R.C.No.18 of 2009 by the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul, confirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in M.C.No.33 of 2007 dated 08.07.2009.
2.It is averred in the petition that the wife filed maintenance petition under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as against her husband. The Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded maintenance to the wifeat Rs.1,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the husband preferred revision before the District and Sessions Court and the learned District Judge dismissed the revision by confirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3.The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent wife has already been given a house property and she has been derived income by leasing out the same and the petitioner is also earning only Rs.1,000/- and therefore, awarding maintenance Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner herein is unjustifiable. Further, it is also contended that the petitioner being disabled person having meagre income cannot afford Rs.1,000/- per month towards maintenance.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, contends that no income is derived from the house, where the respondent wife has been residing and both the Courts below, after analysing the evidence, has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month and the same does not warrant any interference.
5.The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a disabled person with 40% disability and the house property and land has been given to the respondent wife and the petitioner is earning only meagre amount and therefore the order as to the maintenance is to be set aside.
6.There is absolutely no evidence that landed property has been given to the wife and she derives income out of it. Similarly, the house property, wherein, she has been residing does not yield any income to her as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is also no evidence for that.
7.The petitioner being husband is bound to maintain his wife. The petitioner husband is admittedly earning through agricultural land and also by doing service as astrologer.
8.Considering these facts, the Courts below have rightly decided and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the District Judge.
9.In fine, this criminal original petition is dismissed and the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, is confirmed.
To
1.The Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul,
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul..