The main legal point established in the judgment is the husband's obligation to provide maintenance to the wife, irrespective of her capability to earn, and the court's discretion in determining an appropriate maintenance amount based on the husband's employment status and income.

Challenging and impugning the order dated 23. 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No,2, Sangagiri, in M.C.No.2/2004, these criminal revision cases are focussed.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:-

(a) The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.921 of 2006, namely, Jeyakanthan, and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.685 of 2009, namely, Akila, got married on 5. 2003 as

per the Hindu Customs and Rites. It is the contention of Akila that there were dowry harassments etc., at the matrimonial home, thereby she was not made to live peacefully there and rift also resulted in the matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, she filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband-Jeyakanthan.

(b) Whereas, Jeyakanthan would resist the claim of Akila on the main ground that there was no consummation of the marriage; the wife was not looking after his parents and it was she who is responsible for the separation between the two. It is also the contention of Jeyakanthan that the wife is having enough source of income; her father is well off; she is capable of earning huge amount, as she is having M.A.,H.D.C. Qualification and whereas, he is jobless and having no means to pay maintenance.

(c) Before the Magistrate enquiry was conducted. During enquiry, the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.685 of 2009 examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 was marked. The husband was examined himself as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked.

(d) Ultimately, the Magistrate awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.400/- payable by the husband in favour of the wife.

3. Animadverting upon such order of the Magistrate, the wife as well as the husband filed separately these revision cases.

4. It is the grievance of the wife that the awarding of Rs.400/- per month is too meagre and she will not be able to live with that amount.

5. However, it is the contention of the husband that the wife is not at all entitled to get any maintenance and in such a case, her claim for enhanced maintenance is totally untenable.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.

.7. A plain reading of the order of the lower Court, coupled with the records available, would demonstrate and display that the lower Court, after considering the pros and cons of the matter, arrived at the conclusion that the father of the wife is well off and the wife also is capable of earning sufficiently. However, taking into consideration the fact that as on the date of passing of the order, the husband was not proved to be having any job, the Magistrate awarded only a meagre maintenance of Rs.400/-per month payable by the husband in favour of the wife.

8. The learned counsel for the husband would submit that the wife was not at all cooperative with the husband for consummating the marriage; from day one of the marriage, she was not cordial with the husband; and it was she, who is responsible for the rift in the matrimonial relationship, for which, the husband cannot be found fault with for having allegedly neglected to maintain her.

9. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the husband that if at all the husband is having means and the wife is not having any means, the question of invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would arise, at the instance of the wife, however, in this case, the wife had wrongly invoked it and the Magistrate also has wrongly passed such an order.

10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the wife, drawing the attention of this Court to the various portions of the evidence, would develop his argument to the effect that the wife even though is having educational qualification, nevertheless, she is not working and in such a case, the husband cannot compel her to go for some job and earn; on the other hand, as on the date of filing of the M.C., the husband was working in Vinayaga