Dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in CMP.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Salem, the present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner.
2. Earlier, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.2215/- as maintenance for both the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to modify the above order on the ground that the first respondent was doing business, and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and she does not require any maintenace. The Trial Court, after considering the material available on record, dismissing that petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the means of the respondents. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that so far as the second petitioner is concerned, she is the daughter of the petitioner aged about 30 years, and she had married and living separately with her husband. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance.
4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the second respondent had married and living separately with her husband. In the above circumstances, as the second respondent had married and living separately, she is not entitled for maintenance. So far as the first respondent is concerned, as rightly held by the Court below that there is no reason to modify the order granting maintenance. In the above circumstances, the order of the trial Court is modified to the effect that the second respondent is not entitled for maintenance.
5. In the result, the civil revision case is partly allowed, the order awarding maintenance to the second respondent is set aside and petitioner is directed to pay maintenance only in respect of first respondent alone. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the maintenance amount awarded by the Court below is very meager and insufficient to maintain her and if the first respondent had any grievance regarding the quantum of maintenance, it is open to the first respondent to make necessary application before the Court below seeking enhancement.
25.01.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no rrg To 1.Family Court, Salem.
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J rrg
Crl.R.C.No.880 of 2010
25.01.2017