High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.07.2007 CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRL.R.C.NO.608 OF 20061. Ranjitham2. Gokul3. Kaniska.. Petitioners-vs-Sampath @ S.Palanisamy .. Respondent This Revision is filed under section 397 R/W 401 of Crl PCagainst the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Erode in M.C.No.34 of 2003 dated 29.3.2006.For petitioners : : Mr.I.C.VasudevanFor respondent : : Mr.S.Kaithamalai KumaranO R D E RThis revision has been preferred by the revisionpetitioners/petitioners in M.C.No.34 of 2003 on the file of theChief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. M.C.NO.34 of 2003 which wasfiled by the wife and children of the respondent herein formaintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.2. The admitted fact is that the first petitioner has marriedthe respondent herein on 31.8.1995 and that the minor second andthird petitioners are the children born in the wed lock of thefirst petitioner and the respondent herein. The wife/1stpetitioner along with her children had approached the Court formaintenance on the ground that she has been subjected to crueltyby her husband/respondent herein. It is the admitted case of theparties that the respondent is working as a conductor in the StateTransport Corporation at Erode and is drawing a monthly salary ofRs.8189.15ps as per Ex P5 and that after the deductions, the takehome salary of the respondent/husband is Rs.3614/10ps. In themaintenance petition, the wife/1st petitioner/first revisionpetitioner herein has further alleged that the husband/respondentherein has demanded more dowry and also insisted her to sign in a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relinquishment deed to enable him to marry another woman. It isfurther alleged by the wife in her maintenance petition that therespondent/husband herein is addicted to drink and used to beather for no reason. Only under such circumstances, she had left thematrimonial home in the year 2003 and has also preferred acomplaint with the All Women Police Station, Erode on 15.11.2003against her husband/respondent herein. To meet the educationalexpenses, medical expenses and day to day expenses, the wife/firstrevision petitioner had asked for a sum of Rs.1500/- each forherself and for her two minor children towards maintenance. 3. The respondent would allege that after the birth of hisson on 7.6.1996, the wife refused to come and live with therespondent herein for no fault of him which necessitated him toapproach the Erode Police on 25.6.1999 with the complaint and onthe advise of the police, they lived together which resulted inthe birth of the second child and once again the wife/firstrevision petitioner herein had left the matrimonial home andbefore the police, she gave an undertaking that within sixmonths , she will come and live with the respondent but she didnot do so. The respondent herein thereafter sent a banker's chequeof Rs.1000/- to his wife to meet her expenses on 10.12.2003, whichwas refused by his wife. According to the respondent, he has alsofiled H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2004 for restitution of conjugal rights.4. Before the trial Court, both the first petitioner and therespondent have examined themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1respectively. On the side of the petitioners Exs P1 to P5 weremarked and on the side of the respondent Exs R1 to R10 wereexhibited.5.After going through the oral and documentary evidence letin before him, the learned trial Judge has awarded a sum ofRs.500/- each towards maintenance for the petitioners and furtherdirected that the said award of maintenance shall be adjusted withthe amount of maintenance paid by the respondent in I.A.NO.128 of2004 in H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2004. Aggrieved by the findings of thelearned trial Judge, the wife and children have preferred thisrevision contending that the amount of maintenance fixed by thelearned trial Judge is far below the amount asked for by her inthe maintenance petition.6.Now the point for determination in this revision is whetherthe revision petitioners are entitled to get an order ofenhancement of maintenance amount as prayed for? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.Heard Mr. I.C.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioners and Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counselappearing for the respondent and considered their respectivesubmissions.8 The Point:Ex P5 will go to show that even though the husband/respondent inM.C.No.34 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Erode is getting a monthly salary of Rs.8189/15ps, after variousdeductions, the take home salary of the husband/respondent hereinis only Rs.3614/10ps. There is no document produced on the side ofthe wife/first petitioner herein to show that apart from theincome derived under Ex P5, the respondent is getting income fromother sources like, Agricultural income , rental income etc., 9. The fact that the respondent/ husband has moved the Courtfor restitution of conjugal rights is not a ground to reject theclaim of the revision petitioners herein for maintenance. It isthe admitted fact that only after the filing of the petition formaintenance by the wife in the year 2003(M.C.No.34 of 2003) thehusband/respondent herein has approached the Sub Court, Erode forrestitution of conjugal right by way of filing H.M.O.P.No.15 of2004. The first petitioner along with her children viz., 2nd and3rd revision petitioners are separately living with her parents .The reason for her separation is that she had met with crueltyand demand of dowry at the hands of the husband/respondent herein.10. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that in thecost of living to see both end meet, the amount of maintenance ofRs.500/- fixed by the trial Judge to the first revision petitionercannot be sufficient to meet her day today expenses, involvingin food , medicines etc.,. apart from meeting the educationalexpenses for the minor second and third revision petitioners, I amof the view that to meet the ends of justice, the maintenanceamount ordered by the learned trial Judge to the first revisionpetitioner is to be enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs 1000/- permensum. 11. Taking into consideration, the take home salary of thehusband/respondent herein under Ex P5, I am of the view that atpresent the maintenance fixed for the minor children need not beenhanced. If circumstances changes, it is open to the revisionpetitioners herein to file appropriate application for theenhancement of the maintenance amount before the appropriateforum. The point is answered accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. In fine, the revision petition is allowed in part. Theorder in M.C.No.34 of 2003 on the file of the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Erode in respect of the first petitioner/firstrevision petitioner herein is set aside and the amount ofmaintenance awarded to the first petitioner has been enhanced andfixed as Rs.1000/- instead of Rs.500/-, to be paid by therespondent herein from the date of filing of the maintenancepetition.In other aspects, the order of the learned trial Judgein M.C.No.34 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Erode is hereby confirmed. The above said enhancement amount is tobe adjusted with the interim maintenance amount said to have beenawarded in I.A.No.128/2004 in H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2004. on the fileof Sub Court, Erode, filed by the respondent/husband. sgSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.2. The Principal Sub Judge, Sub Court, Erode.+ 1 cc to Mr. I. C. Vasudevan, Advocate, SR No.41456+ 1 cc to Mr. A. K. Kumarasamy, Advocate, SR No.41447Crl.R.C.No.608/2006RS(CO)SR/10.7.2007