The legal principle established is that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only summary proceeding is contemplated, and larger issues relating to responsibility in the rift in matrimonial relationship should be adjudged by the matrimonial court.

Animadverting upon the order dated 011. 2006 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in M.C.No.5 of 2005, this criminal revision is focussed.

2. An epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this criminal revision could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The respondents herein filed M.C.No.5 of 2005 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai seeking maintenance as against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner resisted the claim, the enquiry was conducted.

(ii) During enquiry, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the respondents side, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

(iii) Ultimately, the lower court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.500/- per month payable by the revision petitioner in favour of each of the respondents herein.

(iv) Challenging and impugning, such awarding of maintenance in favour of the respondents herein, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

(a) The HMOP filed by the revision petitioner as against the first respondent would indicate and display that the revision petitioner was not at fault; but it was the first respondent/wife who failed to resume co-habitation with him. As such the learned Magistrate misunderstood the entire facts and simply awarded maintenance.

(b) There is no reason spelt out in the judgment for having fixed such quantum of maintenance.

3. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no one appeared and this is coming before this court for the fifth time. Hence, I proceed to decide the matter on merits from the available materials on record.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The points for consideration are as to:-

1. Whether, there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding maintenance by the lower court, in favour of the respondents herein payable by the revision petitioner and

2. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded is reasonable or not?

6. Admittedly, the relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent is an admitted one. The revision petitioner and R1 got married and during the wedlock, R2 was born. The very fact that the revision petitioner has chosen to file HMOP for restitution of conjugal rights would speak volumes that the first respondent was not at fault. If really, the first respondent was having blame worthy conduct, the revision petitioner would not have gone to the extent of filing such an application for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court after considering the pro et contra and also the oral evidence on either side, arrived at the conclusion that inasmuch as the wife was tortured by the husband, the rift in the matrimonial relationship crept in. The Magistrate court is competent to arrive at a conclusion based on factual evidence.

7. At this juncture, I would like to recollect and call-up the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court.

(i) 2002(6) SCC 650- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerpt from it would run thus:

"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.

14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Hi