ORDER
M. Thanikachalam, J.
1. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent and they were married elsewhere in the year 1973. Thereafter, a dispute had arisen between them and they are living separately from the year 1996.
2. The respondent has filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mannargudi in M.C. No. 8/96, claiming maintenance, as if she is unable to maintain herself and the husband has failed to
maintain her, though he is having sufficient
means. It seems, the petition was opposed
by the husband on the ground that the wife
is having sufficient means, to maintain her
self and since she is living separately on her
own accord, she is also not entitled to maintenance.
3. The trial Court considering the defence, as well the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, has come to the conclusion that the husband is liable to pay maintenance, in view of the fact that the wife is not having sufficient means, to maintain herself, thereby ordering a monthly allowance of Rs. 500/- with effect from the date of filing of the application.
4. The husband/revision petitioner aggrieved by the said order, questioned the same before the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Cr. R.P. No. 18/2000 and the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the revision and in this View, confirmed the findings of the Courts below.
5. The husband, once again questioning the said maintenance order, has filed this petition, to quash the order passed by, the Court below in M.C. No. 8/96, which was confirmed in the C.R.P. The grounds raised in this petition that the respondent-wife is having means to maintain herself was finally decided by the Court, concluding that the wife has no means and therefore, question of reappraising the evidence, by this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C., does not arise for consideration. On the ground of desertion also, the grant of maintenance order is questioned, which was available to the husband and in fact, he raised the same before the Courts below which was not accepted and therefore, the same is not liable to be agitated once again before this Court. No other ground is urged before me to set aside the order, as if the order is affected by any irregularity or one against the law or established procedure, to invoke Section 482, Cr. P.C. In this view, I find no merit in the application and the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
