Animadverting upon the order dated 5.7.2006, passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.111 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-
(a) The revision petitioner herein was proceeded against by the respondents herein under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance before the Family Court, Coimbatore, on the ground that the revision petitioner herein is the husband of R1 and father of R2 and R3 herein; he neglected to provide maintenance to the respondents, in view of the matrimonial rift emerged between the revision petitioner and R1 herein and that the fault was on the revision petitioner. Hence, the respondents herein filed the application seeking maintenance.
(b) On the contrary, the revision petitioner filed the counter, resisting the claim on the ground that the wife was at fault in causing the matrimonial rift and that he was not responsible for the matrimonial disharmony. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prayed for dismissal of the petition.
(c) During enquiry, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The revision petitioner herein examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.
(d) Ultimately, the Family Court Judge awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.1000/-p.m. in favour of R1 and Rs.750/-p.m. in favour of each of R2 and R3. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-
R1 herein did not evince any interest in the marital life with the revision petitioner and she deserted him and hence she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. The petitioner's monthly income itself is only Rs.4000/- as evidenced by Exs.R4 to R6 and hence, he could not pay totally Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance in favour of the respondents. As a counter blast to G.W.O.P.No.412 of 2005 filed by the revision petitioner seeking custody of second respondent, the respondents have chosen to file the maintenance application. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court.
3. Only the learned counsel for the revision petitioner appeared and argued the matter. No one represented the respondents.
4. Since this matter happens to be a revision as against maintenance order, I would like to peruse the records and pass order on merits.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of mind on the part of the Family Court Judge in appreciating the evidence and awarding the maintenance.
6. A bare perusal of the available records, including the judgement of the lower Court would exemplify and demonstrate that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents herein is an admitted one. Even in the revision, there is no challenge to that effect. Even though the revision petitioner had stated that he pronounced 'talaq' etc., the Family Court correctly observed that in maintenance proceedings, he was not enjoined to decide all those points in view of the fact that there is no clinching evidence placed before him relating to 'talaq'. In the revision petition, there is no challenge to the order of the lower Court, on the basis of 'Talaq' having been allegedly pronounced by the revision petitioner as against R1. Nothing is found proved that the wife of her own accord has chosen to shun the company of the petitioner.
7. It is a trite proposition of law that in the summary proceedings under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is concerned with the factum of negligence on the part of the husband in maintaining the poverty stiffen wife and also the children. In this case, the Family Court Judge au fait with law and au courant with facts considered the deposition of R1 herein as P.W.1 and also the documents marked on her side, viz., Exs.P1 to P4 and arrived at the conclusion that the respondents herein are in cash trapped and penurious circumstance as they are reeling under impecunious atmosphere and the revision petitioner should provide maintenance. If at all the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the wife's conduct, in the appropriate regular matrimonial proceedings he could take steps.
8. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that he is getting only a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month and he cannot part with a total sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance. Ex facie and prima facie such a contention is untenable in view of the well settled proposition that a healthy male is expected to work, so to say toil and moil like anything, in addition to strain every nerve to see that he is earning properly and providing maintenance to his wife and minor children. It is a fact that the revision petitioner is a Civil Engineer and in such a case, his contention that he cannot pay such meagre maintenance of Rs.1000/-p.m. to R1 and Rs.750/-p.m. to each children cannot be countenanced. The contention of the husband that because he filed the application seeking custody of R2, the maintenance application was chosen to be filed by the wife, is neither here nor there. The Family Court Judge properly exercised its jurisdiction and awarded maintenance in favour of the respondents, warranting no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed.
Msk To The Family Court, Coimbatore