The court emphasized the husband's duty to maintain the wife based on equity, fair play, and good conscience, and considered the wife's sufferings and experiences as justifying her claim for maintenance.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Husband has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 26/3/2008 in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Theni, in reversing the order dated 23/10/2007 in M.C.No.18 of 2007 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni in allowing the Maintenance Petition filed by the Respondent/Wife.

2. The Learned Principal District Judge, Theni, while passing the Judgment/Order in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007, on 26/3/2008 has among other things observed that “the Respondent (Revision Petitioner) is to maintain legally the wife (Revision Petitioner before the District Court and the Respondent before this Court) and taking into account the Respondent's (Revision Petitioner/Husband) present income status, circumstances, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the date of filing of the petition to the Respondent/Wife and accordingly, set aside the order dated 23/10/2007 passed by the trial Court in M.C.No.18 of 2007 and allowed the Revision accordingly.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- granted by the Learned Principal District Judge, Theni in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007 dated 26/3/2008, the Revision Petitioner/Husband as an aggrieved person has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, should have seen that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 before the trial Court has categorically admitted that she has gone to her parental home on her own and deserted the husband (Revision Petitioner) which has been proved as per Ex.R.1 Letter written by her and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that the Respondent/Wife as P.W.1 in her evidence has admitted that H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Husband seeking the relief of divorce and in fact, P.W.3, brother of the Wife, admitted in his evidence that on 21/1/2007, the Petitioner (Husband) issued Divorce Notice to the Respondent/Wife. Therefore, there is no scope for the Revision Petitioner/Husband to harass the Respondent/Wife on 13/2/2007.

6. Yet another submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband is that the Respondent/Wife has admitted in her evidence that the Revision Petitioner/Husband lost his job and that he is a coolie and therefore, he cannot be directed to pay maintenance, in as much as he has no resource to maintain himself.

7. Lastly, it is the stand of the Revision Petitioner/Husband that the Respondent/Wife in her evidence has admitted that earlier, she worked in a Company and received salary and also her family members received income from properties and therefore, she is able to maintain herself.

8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Wife that the Respondent/Wife has filed M.C.No.18 of 2007 before the trial Court claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-p.m., from the Revision Petitioner/Husband and that even though the trial Court has dismissed the claim of maintenance in M.C.No.18 of 2007, the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni has rightly appreciated the entire gamut of the matter in a proper and real perspective in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2007 (filed by the Respondent/Wife) and ultimately, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-as maintenance to her, which may not be disturbed by this Court at this distance point of time.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband, by way of reply submits that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is a chronic diabetic patient and because of this ailment, he has lost his job and further he is not able to maintain himself and therefore, the award of maintenance at Rs.1,000/-p.m., passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, directing the Revision Petitio