The court considered the urgency and necessity of interim maintenance for the wife and the entitlement of a mentally handicapped son to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

1. The revision petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed an application in M.C.No.54 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned First Additional Family Judge, Chennai, claiming maintenance. Pending the said application, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have also filed a petition in M.P.No.560 of 2009 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Family Court Judge had allowed the said petition directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly interim maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/-to each of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, willfully deserted the petitioner 25 years ago and she had eloped with one person and she was living with him. After so many years, the first respondent had chosen to file a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the second respondent is aged about 25 years and as such, he is a major and therefore, he is not entitled for any maintenance.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that against the order of interim maintenance, no revision lies, since the order is only an interlocutory order. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the first respondent herein is aged about 60 years and in the year 1983, she was forced by the petitioner herein to leave the matrimonial home along with her children. Therefore, she had gone to her parents place at Kolar Gold Field with her children. It is also submitted that there is no bar for claiming maintenance even after 25 years and as such, the first respondent is entitled for claiming interim maintenance.

4. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that as far as the second respondent is concerned, he is not only physically handicapped person but also mentally retarded and he is incapable of maintaining himself. Therefore, he is also entitled for maintenance as well as interim maintenance. It is further submitted that a medical certificate also was filed before the trial Court.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records.

6. Of course, granting interim maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 is only an interlocutory order and though strictly revision may not lie, this Court consider the case on merits by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Admittedly, the first respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner, was living separately for 25 years. According to the petitioner herein, the first respondent willfully deserted her husband and she had gone along with another person. According to the first respondent, the petitioner herein only was having affair with a maid servant from the year 1980, and petitioner was ill-treated by her husband and in the year 1983, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Of course, whether the first respondent willfully deserted the matrimonial home or not is to be decided only after recording the entire evidence. But at the same time, admittedly the first respondent was living separately for 25 years having not claimed any maintenance. Therefore, this Court feels that there is no urgency to award any interim maintenance amount to the first respondent herein. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent herein has got one another son, who is employed and married. In the said circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have ordered any interim maintenance to the first respondent herein.

8. As far as the second respondent is concerned, though he is a major, he is mentally abnormal. Further, the medical certificate produced before the trial Court prima facie supports the claim of the se