SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 2654

High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Paneerselvam
Versus
Abirami
CRL. R.C. NO. 813 OF 2010 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2010 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2011
Decided on: 27-06-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:I.C. Vasudevan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Ganesh Kumar, Advocate.

The court considered the income of the husband, the wife's entitlement to maintenance, and the appropriate amount based on the circumstances.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125 of Cr.P.C - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The wife filed a maintenance case against her husband, claiming a monthly maintenance. The husband resisted the case, alleging false accusations and desertion. The court framed three issues and examined evidence from both parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband, working as a painter, was unable to earn a regular monthly income. It reduced the monthly maintenance awarded to the wife and directed the husband to pay arrears and regular maintenance.

Issues: Eligibility for maintenance, separation, entitlement to receive maintenance

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the husband's income, the wife's physical challenges, and the evidence presented to determine the appropriate maintenance amount.

Final Decision: The revision was partly allowed, and the monthly maintenance awarded was reduced to Rs.1,500, with directions for payment of arrears and regular maintenance.

Judgment :-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

1. The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.6 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam, against the revision petitioner / husband and has claimed a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,000/-. The wife further stated that prior to marriage both had loved each other. Subsequently, the marriage was solemnized at "Arulmigu Srilakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple" on 24.09.2006 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. Prior to the marriage, both had sexual relationship. In the result, she had become pregnant and she gave birth to a male child. Her husband is a painter and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She further stated that her husband had killed the child. Therefore, a criminal case had been registered on the file of Rosanai Police Station as Crime No.296 of 2007. The case is still pending. She further stated that her husband had deserted her and hence she has claimed maintenance against him as he is his legally wedded wife.

2. The husband had filed counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. He admitted that both had loved each other and that subsequently the marriage was solemnized. He had further stated that his wife had levelled a false criminal case against him. The said false case is still pending. He further stated that prior to separation, he had provided all necessities required for his wife. He is not earning Rs.10,000/-, as a painter, as alleged. After marriage, his wife's brother and sister had tortured him and he had opposed them. Hence, the false case had been filed. His wife did not feed her breast milk to the child.

3. On considering the averments of both the parties, the learned Magistrate had framed three issues, viz.,

"(i) Whether the wife is eligible to get maintenance as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C?

(ii) Whether both had separated and living separately? and

(iii) Whether the petitioner / wife is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband?"

4. On the side of the wife, she had been examined as P.W.1 and one Kasirajan had been examined as P.W.2. On the side of the wife, five documents had been marked, viz., Ex.P1-marriage receipt, Ex.P2-child birth certificate, Ex.P3-copy of the plaint filed before the District Munsif Court, Ex.P4-copy of the appeal of the Sub Court and Ex.P5-partition deed. On the side of the husband, the husband had been examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked.

5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that her husband married her on 24.09.2006 at "Arulmigu Srilakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple". Out of wedlock, she gave birth to a male child. The child had subsequently died. She further stated that a Criminal Case in Cr.No.296 of 2007 has been registered against her husband by the Rosanai Police Station. Her husband is doing painting work and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She further stated that her husband had deserted her and therefore she is living separately. She has no job and she is a physically challenged person.

6. P.W.2 had adduced evidence, which is in consonance with the evidence of P.W.1.

7. R.W.1 had stated that he had married the petitioner on 24.09.2006. Before marriage, he had sexual relationship with her. He further stated that his wife had filed a false case, on the instigation of her brother and sister. His wife had refused to give her breast milk to her child. After marriage, her activities had changed on the advice of her brother and sister. Therefore, all of them had jointly started to harass him. He further stated that his wife had deserted him without any reasons.

8. P.W.1 had admitted in her cross-examination that she is living at her brother's house. Further, she has no interest to lead her marital life with her husband.

9. After recording evidence of both sides and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the documents marked by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate had assessed the monthly maintenance payable to the wife as a sum of





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top