1 The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 14.12.2015, passed in M.C.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumpudur, Kancheepuram District and set aside the same.
2. Facts leading to the present round of litigation is that the first respondent was originally married to one R.Nazeer and the said marriage was ended in divorce. Thereafter, when the first respondent was looking for a business in real estate, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and helped her in business. It is alleged that after some time, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to marry the 1st respondent. Initially, since the 1st respondent is a Muslim, refused to accept the proposal of the petitioner, thereafter in view of the petitioner's continuous insistence for marriage, she accepted to marry him and their marriage was solemnized on 18.01.2010, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to wedlock, they begotten the 2nd respondent. After birth of the child, there was no compatibility between them and they got separated. It is alleged by the 1st respondent that though the petitioner possessed sufficient resources in the form of cash, lands etc., 2 and though he is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month, he has not chosen to take care of the respondents. Hence she has filed M.C.No.2/2013, claiming Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent and Rs.10,000/- towards other incidental charges. The Trial Court, vide order dated 14.12.2015, had awarded Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents. Challenging the said award amount, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent and the 2nd respondent is not the son born out of the alleged wedlock and the petitioner is not the father of the 2nd respondent and no valid marriage was solemnized between the 1st respondent and the petitioner. While being so, the Trial Court, passing an order by allowing the petition filed by the respondents and awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents as maintenance from the date of petition, without taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner disputed the very factum of relationship between the respondents and himself, is not sustainable and hence prays for allowing of this petition.
3
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though several attempts were made by the 1st respondent, the petitioner had not chosen to cohabit with her and the 1st respondent without sufficient source of income, struggling to maintain herself and the child. Since the petitioner is having sufficient resources in the form of cash, lands etc, and also earning nearly Rs.50,000/- per month, he is capable to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents, as ordered by the Trial Court and prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.
6. Though it is the claim of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and disputed the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the said point was elaborately discussed by the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before the Trial Court and based on the materials and on independent application of mind, the Trial Court had awarded maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- each 4 to the respondents. In such situation, when the Trial Court elaborately discussed the matter and arrived at a conclusion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record and further, in the present cost of living, the order granting maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents, is just and reasonable.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.08.2021 Speaking/Non Speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sk
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
5 Sk To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumpudur, Kancheepuram District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.498 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3271 of 2016 11.08.2021 6