IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Revision No.948 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Sivakumar .. Petitioner Vs
1. Vijaya
2. Minor Rathinavel
3. Minor Anantha Prakash .. Respondents Prayer:-
This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 18.05.2011 made in M.C.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.
For petitioner : Mr. L.Mouli, For respondents : Mr. M.Parthasarathy
O R D E R
Challenging the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C granting maintenance to the respondents, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the wife and the minor children of the petitioner herein. According to the respondents, the marriage between the first respondent and the petitioner took place on 24.11.1993, and the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them out of their wedlock. Subsequently, the petitioner demanded dowry, and driven her out of the matrimonial home along with the minor children. Thereafter, they were living separately and only the first respondent is maintaining the respondents 2 and 3. Since, she is not able to maintain herself and the minor children, she has filed a petition seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- each, to the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein objected the above application stating that already the first respondent is working in a tailoring shop and thereby, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m., and she does not need any maintenance.
4. Considering all the materials, the court-below directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to each of the respondents, totaling a sum of Rs.4500/- per month. Challenging the above said order, the husband, filed the present revision.
5. I have heard Mr.L.Mouli , learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. It is admitted fact that the respondents 1 to 3 are living separately and the first respondent is only maintaining the respondents 2 and 3. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that the first respondent is his wife and the respondents 2 and 3 are his children. Hence, the petitioner has a legal obligation and bound to maintain the respondents. The case of the petitioner that the first respondent is earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m, which is not supported by any evidence, but it is established that the petitioner has means to pay maintenance to the respondents. Hence, the trial court considering the material available on record awarded maintenance. On perusal of records, I find no irregularity or illegality or perversity in the order passed by the court-below. Hence, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the revision is dismissed and the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi, dated 18.05.2011 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.01.2017 mrp Index:Yes To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras.
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp Crl.R.C.No.948 of 2011 24.01.2017