THE HONOURABLE MR v. Smt.Anjali2.Master N.Ranganathan3.Ms.Radha4.Master N.Raja5.N.Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 12.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.924 of 2004andCrl.M.P.No.6371 of 2004Nagappan.. PetitionerVs.1.Smt.Anjali2.Master N.Ranganathan3.Ms.Radha4.Master N.Raja5.N.Devi .. RespondentsPrayer:- This revision has been preferred under sec 397 & 401of Cr P C against the order dated 8.1.2004 made in M.C.No.193of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Family Court,Chennai.For Petitioner :Mr.G.R.SwaminathanFor Respondents :Mr.G.Ramachandran R1 to R5JUDGMENTThis revision has been preferred against the order inM.C.No.193 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional FamilyCourt, Chennai. In M.C.No.193 of 2000 the petitioners areone Anjali (wife) and dauthers Ms.N.Radha and Mr.N.Devi. Thesaid petition was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,claiming maintenance from the respondent/husband of the firstpetitioner. In the petition the petitioners have claimedRs.500/- each for the petitioners No.1 to 3 towardsmaintenance. The respondent has filed a counter admittingthe marriage between the first petitioner and the respondentand also the birth of the other two minor petitioners in thewedlock. According to the respondent/husband, the firstpetitioner/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home inthe year 1990 and there was a compromise entered into betweenthe parties before the punchayators and in the panchayat therespondent/husband had paid 1 ½ acres of land, a residential https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ house besides 4 milch animal, to the first petitioner/wife.The respondent/husband has denied having a monthly income ofRs.10,000/-. But he would admit that he is a mason byprofession.2. The first petitioner/wife had examined herself asP.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P.1, wedding invitation dated11.2.1990, to show that the marriage between her and therespondent was solemnized on 11.2.1990, and Ex.P.2, theelection identity card to show that she/first petitioner isthe wife of the respondent.3.Per contra, the respondent/husband has examinedhimself as R.W.1 and exhibited Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.4.After going through the evidence let in on both sides,the learned trial judge has come to the conclusion that thepetitioners are entitled to a monthly alimony of Rs.1000/-each and accordingly disposed of the petition. Aggrieved bythe findings of the learned trial Judge, therespondent/husband has preferred this revision.5.Now the point for determination in this revision iswhether the petitioners are entitled to maintenance and if soto what amount?6.The Point:- 6(a) The learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner/husband would contend that even as perthe original petition filed by the petitioners there are onlythree petitioners viz. Mrs.Anjali, Ms.N.Radha & Ms.N.Devi andother two petitioners viz. Master N.Renganathan & MasterN.Raja have been subsequently dropped and to that effect anendorsement has been made by the first petitioner-Anjali(wife) in the original petition filed under Section 125 ofCr.P.C., itself. But the learned trial judge withoutadverting to the above said fact, has ordered maintenance tothe first petitioner and also to the petitioners 3 to 5 witha rider to that the 4th petitioner is entitled to maintenancetill Novermber-2003 i.e., the date he attained majority. 6(b) The learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner would further contend that the quantum of amountfixed by the learned trial judge is on the higher side and itis to be reduced taking into consideration the income derivedby the revision petitioner/husband. According to the firstrespondent herein/wife, who was examined as P.W.1, therevision petitioner, who is none other than her husband, isdrawing an rental income of Rs.40,000/- per month from 20houses of his own. Against this evidence, there is an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admission in the cross-examination of R.W.1/husband to theeffect that he is getting rental income from his houses. Buthe would say that he is having only three houses But to showthat he is having only three houses and also to show that therental income derived by him from each of the houses therevision petitioner/husband has not adduced any documentaryevidence. But he would admit in the cross-examination thathe is a mason and also knows to drive an auto and he is abroker indulged in cattle business. R.W.1/husband wouldadmit in the cross-examination that he gave five milchanimals and 1 ½ acres of land at the time of panchayat, whichtook place in the year 1987 in favour of the first respondentherein/wife. But the land belongs to his mother, but hewould say that to show that the land belongs to his months,he has not produced any documentary evidence. It is anadmitted case of the revision petitioner/husband that he hadmarried another lady for the second time and through her hehas been blessed with two children and that they are alsoliving with him. 6(c) Under such circumstances, it cannot be saidthat without any rhyme or reason the first respondentherein/wife along with her children had deserted the revisionpetitioner/husband. When compare to the income of therevision petitioner (rental income from the houses, accordingto the first respondent herein/wife Rs.40,000/- per month),the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned trial judgecannot be said to be exorbitant. The learned counselappearing for the revision petitioner would contend that atleast the quantum can be reduced. Taking into considerationthe cost of living and the fact that the firstrespondent/wife is without any source of income and also thatthere is no male member to assist her and the ordeal in whichshe has to brought up two minor female children and toprovide education to them, the quantum of maintenance fixedby the learned trial judge cannot be said to be on the higherside or exorbitant. But by over site the learned trial judgehas ordered maintenance for the 4th petitioner-Master N.Rajaalso, omitted to note that subsequently his name has beendropped alongwith 2nd petitioner-Master N.Renganathan by thefirst petitioner herself from the petition filed underSection 125 of Cr.P.C. Point is answered accordingly.7.In the result, the revision is dismissed, but with thefollowing modification in the order passed in M.C.No.193 of2000 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.The revision petitioner/husband is ordered to pay a monthlymaintenance of Rs.1,000/- to each of the petitioners viz.Mrs.Anjali, Ms.N.Radha and Ms.N.Devi from the date of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition. Since 3rd respondent herein-Ms.N.Radha has becomemajor on 6.7.2001 (as per Ex.R.1 date of birth in the TC),the revision petitioner is bound to pay maintenance to her(Ms.N.Radha) till 6.7.2001 from the date of petition. Thepetitioner in M.C.No.193 of 2000 on the file of theII Additional Family Court, Chennai, are entitled to thecosts through out. Counsel fee for the respondents herein isRs.2,500/-. Connected, Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2004 is alsodismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The II Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai.2.The Principal Family Court Judge, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan,Advocte Sr 42183ssvRS(CO)km/27.7.Crl.R.C.No.924 of 2004and Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2004