Rani v. M.Sundaramoorthy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:16.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.217 of 20071. Rani2. Gomathi ... Petitionersvs.M.Sundaramoorthy ... RespondentPrayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe order passed in CMP No.448 of 2004 in M.C.No.3 of 1993 dated06.09.2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Polur,Tiruvannamalai.For Petitioner: Mr.S.RavichandranFor Respondent: Ms.Subharanjini Ananth for T.S.Gopalan & Co. O R D E RAnimadverting upon the order dated 06.09.2006 passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai in CMP No.448 of2004 in M.C.No.3 of 1993, this criminal revision is focussed.2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which areabsolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revisionwould run thus:Indubitably and indisputably, the respondent is the husband ofthe first revision petitioner and father of the second revisionpetitioner. Originally the revision petitioners filed M.C.No.3 of1993 claiming maintenance as against the respondent, whereupon theCourt awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.250/- and Rs.100/- permonth payable by the respondent herein in favour of each of thepetitioners respectively. C.M.P.No.448 of 2004 under Section 127Cr.P.C. was filed for enhancing the maintenance. After hearing bothsides, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs.500/- per month asmaintenance in favour of each of the revision petitioners payable bythe respondent.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the meagreincreased awarded by the Court, the revision petitioners hereinfiled the revision petition for enhancing the amounts awarded by thelearned Magistrate on various grounds, the warp and woof of themwould run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ignoring the fact that the gross monthly salary of therespondent is Rs.8,819/- as evidenced by Ex.P2, simply the learnedMagistrate awarded meagre enhancement and thereby, deprived theright of the revision petitioners to get adequate succor from therespondent. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is anyperversity or non-application of law in passing the order dated06.09.2006 by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for therevisions petitioners would set forth and advance his argument tothe effect that in this present day cost of living, the wife and thedaughter of a Government accountant cannot lead a decent life withthe meagre maintenance of Rs.500/- per month in favour of each ofthem.5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would by wayof torpedoing and pulverising the argument as put forth on the sideof the revision petitioners would submit that the respondentincurred huge loan for solemnising the marriage of his one otherdaughter and in connection with that, every month a sum ofRs.3,500/- is being deducted and as such, his take home pay was onlyRs.3,854/- and with that he has to meet his own commitments.6. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to verify as towhat was the salary of the respondent at the relevant time. Aportion of Ex.P2 is extracted here under for ready reference anddiscussion:@Cjpa tptuk;gpoj;jk;1/ Cjpak; U:/4800-? 1/ bghJitg;g[epjp; U:/1000-?2/ jdpCjpak; U:205-? 2/ bghJitg;g[epjp fld; U:/3200-?3/ mftpiyg;go U:/3554-? 3/ FLk;g eyepjp U:/ 20-?4/ tPl;Ltlifg;go U:/100-? 4/ rpwg;g[ nrkeyepjp U:/ 20-?5/ kUj;Jtgo U:/ 50-? 5/ kUj;Jteyepjp U:/ 10-?6/ eph;za gazg;go U:/110-? 6/ gz;oif Kd;gzk; gpoj;jk; U:/100-? 7/ m";ryfj;jpy; gp/vy;/I/ jpl;lj;jpy; brYj;Jk;bjhif U:/615-??????????????bkhj;jk; U:/8819-? U:/4965-? epfuk; ////U:/3854-?@7. From the above extract, it is quite clear that his grosssalary during the month of January 2006 was Rs.8,819/-. TowardsGPF, he was contributing a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It is at onceunderstandable that for a man whose basic salary is Rs.4,800/-, hewas not expected to contribute compulsorily a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards GPF. Be that as it may, towards GPF loan, he wascontributing a sum of Rs.3,200/-.8. The learned counsel for the respondent would expound andexplain that the respondent was constrained to avail GPF tosolemnise the marriage of his one other daughter and in that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connection alone, that amount was deducted from his salary everymonth. Under item 7 referred to supra, he was contributing a sum ofRs.615/-, which cannot be treated as compulsory deduction also. Assuch, if accordingly worked out, even though his take home pay isshown as Rs.3,854/-, in stricto senso, it should be construed thathis monthly disposable income would be around Rs.5,000/-. Here thelearned Magistrate simply increased the sum of Rs.250/-per month toRs.500/- per month and Rs.100/- per month to Rs.500/- per month infavour of the first and the second revision petitioners respectivelywithout rhyme or reason or any logic behind it. The ratiocinationwhich should be adhered to in awarding maintenance must be such thatthe amount awarded towards maintenance must enable the awardee tomake both ends meet, to keep the wolf from the door and also to keepthe pot boiling. But on the contrary, per month, a sum of Rs.500/-was awarded in favour of each of the revision petitioners whichwould not be sufficient to meet even half their needs andrequirements. 9. Taking into account the cost of living which prevailedduring the year 2006, a person would have required atleast a sum ofRs.30/- per day and accordingly if worked out, it comes to Rs.900/-per month. Towards medical expenses, travelling expenses and otherunforeseen expenses, each one would have required atleast Rs.100/-per month. Ultimately, each one's requirement is quantified in asum of Rs.1,000/-. It is a trite proposition of law that a wife isentitled to live in commensurate with the status of her husband.Here his salary slip itself would evince and evidence that he is aclerical cadre person working in BDO Office and certainly his wifeand child are entitled to lead a reasonably descent life and in sucha case, the sum to be awarded in favour of each of them should beRs.1,000/- per month. Accordingly, the order of the Magistrate ismodified and the sum of Rs.500/- per month awarded in favour of eachof the revision petitioners is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month infavour of each of them.10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners alsoappositely and appropriately, correctly and convincingly highlightedthat as per the settled proposition of law, the enhancement awardedshould take effect from the date of the filing of C.M.P.No.448 of2004, and, not from the date of the order. The Magistrate committederror on that aspect also. Hence that also requires modification.The enhanced amount of Rs.1,000/- now ordered is payable from thedate of the filing of CMP No.448 of 2004 by the respondent in favourof the revision petitioners.Accordingly, this criminal revision case is partly allowed.gmsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai2. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District.+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Ravichandran, Advocate, SR No.31863+ 1 cc to M/s. T.S. Gopalan, Advocate, SR No.31913MSM(CO)SR/14.8.2009Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2007