Challenging the order, dismissing the petition, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
2. The brief, facts of the case, is as follows:-
The respondent herein is the son of the petitioner and the petitioner has married to one Somasundari and out of the wedlock they got son and daughter, thereafter, his wife Somasundari did not treat him properly. In the year 1994, she has taken over the bakery run by the petitioner, and send him out of the house. Thereafter, the petitioner doing some menial work and eating him livelihood, now he is aged about 64 years, he is having several health problems, and he has no means to maintain himself. Hence, he filed a petition in M.C.No.53 of 2015 against the respondent claiming a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance. The above application was contested by the respondent on the ground that, the petitioner is drunkard and he has always quarreled with his mother, and the property was purchased by his mother by way of selling her jewels and other things. The petitioner has deserted his family, he is now living with one Poonkodi, he also got two daughters through his second wife, he is engaged in manufacturing sweets and snacks and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner also having an immovable property, and owned a four wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 66 H 0966. Whereas, the respondent is working in a private company and getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month and out of which, he is maintaining his mother.
The respondent and his mother have borrowed the amount and performed the marriage of his sister. So the respondent unable to pay the maintenance to the petitioner.
3. In order to prove its case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and one Selvam was examined as P.W.2, who is working in the fair price shop, and 5 documents were marked on his side. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and one Dhasarathan was examined as R.W.2 and one Arasakumaran was examined as R.W.3 and 10 documents were marked on his side to show that the respondent alone performed the marriage of his sister, and the Family Card issued by the Public Distribution System, which shows that the petitioner is living with one Poonkodi and his two daughters. Considering the above materials, the trial court has held that the petitioner is living with one Poonkodi, also have two daughters, he is also having sufficient means to maintain himself, and dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5. The petitioner is a father of the respondent, claiming maintenance on the ground that the respondent and his mother driven him out of the house and now he is doing some menial work, now due to his old age and having so many deceases, he has no means to maintain himself. But, from the evidence adduced by the respondent, it could be seen that the petitioner is now living with one Poonkodi and also having two daughters through the above said Poonkodi, and he has also admitted in his evidence that he is having a four wheeler. Apart from that there are materials to show that the petitioner is preparing sweets and snacks and supply the same to the shops. Considering the same, the trial Court come to the conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain himself and he does not required any maintenance from the respondent. In the above circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the finding of the court below. Hence, the criminal revision case fails and the same is dismissed.
6. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
21.06.2017
rrg/rli V.BHARATHIDASAN. J.
rrg/rli Crl.R.C.No.667 of 2017 21.06.2017