Challenging and impugning the order dated 13.6.2006, passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, in M.C.No.10 of 2001, 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:-
The respondent herein being the wife of the revision petitioner filed the M.C.No.10. Of 2001 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, seeking maintenance on the ground that 25 years anterior to the filing of the M.C., they got married and gave birth to children also and thereafter there was rift in the matrimonial relationship; the husband started living with one other lady and failed to maintain the respondent herein. Whereupon, she filed the M.C. claiming maintenance. The revision petitioner resisted the same on the ground that the respondent herein is living with one Muniappan illegally and as such, she has got no right to claim maintenance.
3. During enquiry, the wife was examined as P.W.1 along with two others as P.W.s.2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the husband side, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.
4. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate ordered a sum of Rs.500/- per month payable by the husband to the wife as maintenance. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the awarding of maintenance, the husband filed this revision petition on various grounds, which could tersely and pithily be set out thus:-
The learned Magistrate, without taking into account the relevant facts and evidence simply awarded maintenance. The fact remains that the respondent herein eloped with one A.V.Muniappan to Bangalore and she deserted the husband and she cheated on the marriage tie between the revision petitioner herein and the respondent. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that O.S.No.889 of 1995 filed by the wife claiming maintenance is pending before the learned District Munsif, Palacode. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the award passed by the learned Magistrate and for ultimately dismissing the M.C.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Magistrate was perverse in appreciating the evidence and in awarding maintenance in favour of the wife of the revision petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would set forth and put forth his arguments to the effect that the respondent-wife has gone astray by starting to live with one Muniappan and in such a case she dis-entitled herself from claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner herein and Without adhering to this point, simply, the lower Court awarded maintenance.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that absolutely there is no iota or miniscule, molecular or scintilla extent of evidence to point out that the respondent herein eloped with one A.V.Muniappan and that she is living in adultery. The learned Magistrate considered at length the contention of the revision petitioner herein and held that no evidence much less convincing evidence was let in by the revision petitioner so as to buttress and fortify his plea that the respondent herein started living with one A.V.Muniappan adulterously.
9. Adultery is a serious plea. If at all the respondent has been living in adultery, as contended by the husband, it is not known as to what prevented him from taking legal action as against his wife for snapping the matrimonial relationship between himself and herself. Despite the fact that O.S. also is pending at the instance of the wife as against the husband, claiming maintenance, he has not chosen to set the matrimonial law in motion for obtaining divorce; he has also not chosen to prosecute the alleged adulterer M.V.Muniappan. In M.C. proceedings preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a trite proposition that witness might lie but the circumstances would not lie. Here the circumstances, as discussed and set out supra would clearly demonstrate and convey that the husband, in order to wriggle out of his responsibility to pay maintenance to the wife has chosen to dish out the plea as though the wife is living in adultery with M.V.Muniappan. Whereas, the respondent herein would raise her accusative finger as against her husband that it was he who started living with one other lady and that alone made her to desert the petitioner and such a plea of the wife is found to be reasonable also. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate arrived at a reasoned conclusion, warranting no interference by this Court.
10. There is nothing to buttress that the respondent is having income or sufficient income to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband is duty bound to maintain his wife irrespective of the fact whether he is having sufficient income or not. Here the Court ordered only a very meagre sum of Rs.500/- per month in favour of the wife payable by the husband and I could not visualise as to how a lady could live, in the present day cost of living, with Rs.500/- per month, however the learned Magistrate had chosen to award such an amount and it was also accepted by the respondent. As such, I could see no merit in the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Msk To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode