IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.24699 of 2005 and M.P.No.7143 of 2005 Periyadurai @ Tirumalaisamy .. Petitioner Versus Jothimani .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 14.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Judge No.III, Dharapuram in Crl.R.P.No.45 of 2004 by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in M.C.No.23 of 2002 dated 18.11.2003. For Petitioner : M/s. R.Syed Mustafa For Respondent : M/s. V.Purushothaman (No appearance) O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above petition to set aside the order dated 14.02.2005 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Judge No.III, Dharapuram in Crl.R.P.No.45 of 2004 by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in M.C.No.23 of 2002 dated 18.11.2003.
2. The respondent/wife has filed M.C.No.23 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram against the petitioner/husband claiming maintenance against her husband. The respondent stated in her maintenance petition that she had married the petitioner on 23.06.1999 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. The said marriage was an arranged one. Immediately, after marriage, the newly married couple led their life in the matrimonial home as joint family. While so, the petitioner demanded dowry and another 25 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from her parents, on the instigation of mother and brother of the petitioner, for which the petitioner had assaulted and beaten the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife lodged a criminal complaint with the all Women Wing Police Station for harassment and demand of dowry. The Inspector of All Women Wing Police Station registered a criminal case in No. 5 of 2000 under Dowry Prohibition Act. After conducting trial, the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case. Hence, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal proceedings.
3. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the maintenance case in M.C.No.23 of 2002 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, claiming Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance against her husband/petitioner herein. The petitioner resisted the claim by way of filing counter statements. After contest, the learned Magistrate awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner/husband has filed revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.45 of 2004 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Judge No.III, Dharapuram, on various grounds and contended in his application that the maintenance has been erroneously awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, that the respondent/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Further, the witnesses have not been properly examined and evidence was also not considered. The learned Magistrate also did not consider the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Case No.37 of 2000. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent was placed before the village panchayatdars and so the village panchayatdars are necessary witnesses in this case. Their deposition is also necessary to decide the maintenance case. Further, the petitioner has alleged that he has not been given an opportunity by the trial Court to establish his case.
5. The respondent/wife has stated in her maintenance petition that she is employed as a coolie, that her husband/petitioner is involved in agricultural operations. The same has been narrated by the respondent in her Maintenance Petition as well as the counter in the Revision Petition. The learned Magistrate, Dharapuram, after hearing both sides, dismissed the M.C.No.23 of 2002 on 18.11.2003. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.P.No.45 of 2004, before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Judge No.III, Dharapuram. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Revision Petition on 14.02.2005. Aggrieved against that order, the petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Original Petition to set aside the same.
6. The petitioner contended that he has filed documents in the lower appellate court to prove his income and a partition deed to prove that the petitioner is only in enjoyment of 3.58 acres of dry land and the same was not considered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram and the lower appellate Court was also not correct in rejecting the petitioner’s plea of remanding the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram to reopen the Miscellaneous Case and permit the petitioner to adduce his evidence to prove the income of the petitioner and mark necessary documents in support of his defence.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the averments in the petition, complaint and other connected materials, the Court is of the view that the petitioner wants to mark documents to prove his income, but that document is not necessary. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Hence, he is entitled to pay maintenance to his wife. So, the lower court ordered Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife. This maintenance amount is reasonable. Under such circumstances, the court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Judge No.III, Dharapuram in Crl.R.P.No.45 of 2004 by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in M.C.No.23 of 2002 dated 18.11.2003.
8. Under such circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mra
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge
-cum- Fast Track Judge No.III,
Dharapuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Dharapuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras