IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.04.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
CRL.R.C.No. 404 of 2009
G.Ramesh .. Petitioner/Respondent
..Vs..
1.Minor R.Suruthik
2.Minor R.Monish
Minors rep. by their Guardian
Mother R.Santhi
3.R.Santhi .. Respondents/Petitioners
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 06.04.2009 made in C.M.P.No.223 of 2009 in M.C.No.41 of 2006, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy
For Respondents : Mr.T.Bhuvaneswar
ORDER
This revision has been filed against the order passed in C.M.P.No.223 of 2009 in M.C.No.41 of 2006 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.
2.The averments in the petition is as follows:
(i) On 13.06.2008, in M.C.No.41 of 2006, the petitioner/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the third respondent/wife and Rs.750/- each as maintenance to the first and second respondent/minor children, against which, he preferred C.M.P.No.223 of 2003, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Erode.
(ii) The petitioner/husband worked as a Lecturer in a private college and earned Rs.5,000/- per month, but he was dismissed from his service, after examined the witness from the College. For past six months, he was suffering without any avocation. At present, the petitioner/husband is working as a teacher in Kalaivani Matriculation School, Pallipalayam and earning Rs.2,500/- per month. Since he has to maintain his aged parents with his salary, he is unable to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the third respondent, his wife and Rs.750/- each to the first and second respondent, his minor children. Hence he prayed for setting aside the order passed in M.C.No.41/2006.
(iii)Refuting the same, the third respondent/wife stated that her husband had given a false averments that he was dismissed from his service and he was suffered without avocation for past six months and at present, he is working as a Teacher in Kalaivani Matriculation School and earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month.
(iv)The petitioner/husband, at the time of marriage, he was taking tuition to plus-2 students and more than 100 students were studying. He was tutoring maths and science and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Originally, he was running Ramesh Tuition Centre at Erode and now it was changed as Annai Tuition Centre. The petitioner/husband’s father was working as Watchman in a private company and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. So the contention of the petitioner/husband is false that he ought to have maintained his old parents.
(v)The petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.136/2006 before the Principal Sub-Court, Erode, for divorce, but the same was dismissed for non-appearance. So the petitioner/husband has evaded to pay the maintenance to her, he has preferred C.M.P.No.223 of 2009. The learned Judge, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 and P2, dismissed the petition, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/husband.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submitted that after passing award in M.C.No.41 of 2006, the revision petitioner/accused has lost his job and at present, he has employed as a Teacher in a School and his monthly income is only Rs.2,500/- per month. So he is not in a position to maintain his wife and children. Hence he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and allowing this revision.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision petitioner has not preferred any revision against the order passed in M.C.No.41 of 2006. But in the trial Court itself, he filed C.M.P.No.223 of 2009 for setting aside the order passed in M.C.No.41 of 2006. The trial Court has considered the same and came to the correct conclusion and hence the petition itself is not maintainable. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the revision.
5.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and materials available on record.
6.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 the Correspondent of the school, where P.W.1 was working, she categorically admitted that the Salary Register under Ex.P2 was not verified and signed by the Departmental Authorities, because they come for auditing only in the month of June. At the time of cross-examination, a suggestion was posed her that since she knows the revision petitioner for several years, as a close friend of him, she helped him, but it was denied by her.
7.Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a Post Graduate and he was employed as a Lecturer in a college. It is painful to accept that now he is working as a Teacher in a school and earning only Rs.2,500/- per month. So the revision petitioner/husband has evaded to pay the maintenance to his wife and children, he come forward with such a false averment.
8.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in 1998 Crl.L.J.1795 (T.Kausalya v. T.Narayana Reddy and another) in which, when the wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the husband made an endorsement that he is willing to pay the amount as maintenance and then, the order was passed. After the retirement from his service, his monthly income was Rs.8,000/- per month. Subsequently, he was retired and his pension was only Rs.3,000/- per month. So considering his pension, the maintenance amount given to his wife was reduced.
9.But here, the revision petitioner is a Post Graduate and at the time of filing maintenance petition, he was working in a college. According to the evidence of P.W.1 husband, he was dismissed from his service. As per the version of his wife, the third respondent, the revision petitioner is taking tuition for plus-2 students and tutoring maths and science and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, I am of the view that the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10.The trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the attitude of the petitioner, instead of filing the revision against M.C.No.41/2006, he filed C.M.P.No.223/2009 before the same Court for setting aside the order. The trial Court considered this aspect in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. So I do not find any merits in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed and hence it is hereby dismissed.
11.In fine,
The Criminal Revision is dismissed.
The order passed by both the Courts below are hereby
confirmed.
kj
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Erode.
2.The Record Keeper
Criminal Section, High Court,
Madras