IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.634 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Shanmugasundaram ... Petitioner vs. Chinnammal ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 09.03.2007 made in M.C.No.5 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan O R D E R
Animadverting upon the order dated 09.03.2007, passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in M.C.No.5 of 2006, this criminal revision is focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(a) The respondent herein filed M.C.No.5 of 2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as against the revision petitioner herein claiming maintenance.
(b) Inasmuch as the revision petitioner resisted the claim, enquiry was conducted. During enquiry, on the side the of the wife/respondent herein, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the husband/petitioner herein, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.
(c) Ultimately the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the respondent herein payable by the revision petitioner.
3. Animadverting upon such awarding of maintenance, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:
The lower Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent is capable of earning herself and ignoring the ingredients of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the lower Court simply awarded maintenance. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding maintenance.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court failed to take into account the evidence on record; admittedly the respondent herein is residing in part of the petitioner’s house and as such, she is having no commitment for paying any rent and eventhough the wife simply stated as though the husband, namely the revision petitioner is having sufficient income, absolutely there is no evidence to show that he is actually cultivating the land and deriving income to a tune of Rs.1,75,000/- per annum as alleged by the respondent. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the husband is bound to maintain his wife when she is not capable of maintaining herself; her only son is not shown to be earning anything so as to maintain the mother and in such a case, the wife without proving anything is entitled to get maintenance and as such, there is nothing wrong in the order of the lower Court.
9. A plain reading of the entire judgment of the lower Court and the perusal of the records available would make it explicitly clear that the relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent is an admitted one. No doubt, if the son of a lady is capable of earning and actually earning sufficiently, then the liability of the husband of the lady to pay maintenance to her can be curtailed to a larger extent. But in this case, there is no shred or shard, iota or molecular extent of evidence to exemplify and demonstrate that her only son is earning and having any substantial income. As such, the primary responsibility is on the husband to maintain his wife. It is in evidence that the revision petitioner is in possession of fertile land measuring around two acres. It is anybody’s guess that from out of the said two acres of irrigable land, he would get sufficient income. By no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that the husband would not be able to pay even the meagre sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife and per year, it comes to Rs.12,000/- only. The Court has to visualise as to whether the husband/the revision petitioner might not be able to derive income from two acres, so as to pay the meagre sum of Rs.12,000/- per annum in favour of his wife. The answer is at once clear that the husband would in all probabilities getting the sufficient income so as to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent. It could also be understood from the above that per day the maintenance amount comes to Rs.30/- and per month it comes to Rs.900/-. Towards medical expenses, travel expenses and unforeseen expenses, she would require atleast a sum of Rs.100/- per month. As such the total comes to Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The lower Court correctly visualised all these aspects and arrived at the sum of Rs.1,000/- per month payable by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent, warranting no interference by this Court.
In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Gms 30.07.2009
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Kodumudi.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras.
G.RAJASURIA,J.,
gms
Crl.R.C.No.634 of 2007
30.07.2009