Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Mohamed Rafique – Appellant
Versus
Muthu Begam & Another – Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 70 of 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2015
Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - Challenging the legality – Jurisdiction – Claim of compensation - It is further case of the first respondent that the petitioner herein is owning a house and also a car and he is also running a garment business, which gives employment to ten persons and adding salt to wound petitioner has also pronounced and thereby putting first respondent to a grave agony and mental hardship. According to first respondent, the petitioner is a man of means and therefore, claimed a sum month towards maintenance - Said petition for maintenance was strongly opposed by petitioner by contending that after the birth of child without any rhyme or reason first respondent has left the company of petitioner herein and left for her parental home and though he was ready and willing to live with her, on account of adamant attitude, the first respondent refused to live with him. It is denied in the counter that the petitioner herein who is running a garment business and earning a sum of per month and according to him, he is eking out his livelihood as a daily coolie in Kerala and is earning a sum of and in any event, the amount of maintenance claimed is exorbitant one and prayed for dismissal of the petition – Held, petitioner, who was examined would further admit that at the time of marriage, he was unemployed and would further add that he is receiving a sum of Rs.7,500/- from Kerala, but he did not produce any documents - Marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is admitted and so also the birth of respondent – minor female child out of the said wedlock. The revision petitioner, on his own admission, would admit that as per jewels and articles were given and the said document was signed by his father and President and Secretary of and it was his further admission that at time of his marriage, he was unemployed and subsequently he was employed as a coolie in Kerala and he is also doing part time job as Driver but did not produce any documents regarding his income and to prove that his earnings are inadequate to meet his own expenses - It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that petitioner has also pronounced which is considered to be a sinful act and he should have pronounced by giving timely interval, so that mediatory efforts would have been possible but petitioner on his own act, has prevented the mediatory efforts so as to enable first respondent to join with her company - Petitioner, who was examined has admitted in his evidence that he is earning a sum as a Salesman in a Textile Shop in Kerala and also doing part time job as a Driver and he did not produce any document to show that he was earning a sum only - But the fact remains that even as per own admission of the petitioner that he is earning a sum per month and he has not disclosed the fact of the income earned by him by doing part time job as a Driver - Family Court taking into consideration of fact that the first respondent continue to remain in her parental home and she has to maintain a minor girl child and taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances including the conduct of revision petitioner, thought fit to award a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum per month respondent – Minor girl child towards monthly maintenance payable from the date of petition - Petition is dismissed
1. The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.80 of 2013 filed by the respondents herein under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said petition, after contest, came to be ordered on 23.06.2014 by directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner/minor daughter, aged about 2½ years. Challenging the legality of the same, the present revision is filed.
2. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court disclose the following facts:
The petitioner married the first respondent on 04.09.2011 as per Islamic Rights and Customs and out of wedlock, the 2nd respondent was born. According to the first respondent, within 4 months from the date of marriage, she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry and though 70 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.2 lakhs and sreedhana articles of Rs.2 lakhs were given, the petitioner has pledged the said jewels for the purpose of improvement of his business. The first respondent would further state that since her parents were unable to concede to the demand of dowry, she was driven out of the matrimonial home, when she was in the stage of four months pregnancy and thereafter, she gave birth to the female child as the 2nd respondent. Even after the birth of the child, the petitioner has failed to take back the first respondent and the child and the first respondent also lodged a complaint on the file of the All Women Police Station, Theni District.
2.1. It is the further case of the first respondent that the petitioner herein is owning a house and also a car and he is also running a garment business, which gives employment to ten persons and adding salt to the wound, the petitioner has also pronounced 'Muthalaq' on 24.07.2013 and thereby putting the first respondent to a grave agony and mental hardship. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is a man of means and therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance.
2.2. The said petition for maintenance was strongly opposed by the petitioner by contending that after the birth of the child, without any rhyme or reason, the first respondent has left the company of the petitioner herein and left for her parental home and though he was ready and willing to live with her, on account of adamant attitude, the first respondent refused to live with him. It is denied in the counter that the petitioner herein, who is running a garment business and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and according to him, he is eking out his livelihood as a daily coolie in Kerala and is earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- only and in any event, the amount of maintenance claimed is exorbitant one and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
2.3. During the course of enquiry, the first respondent – the petitioner in the maintenance case examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioner, who was arrayed as respondent, examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3.
2.4. The family Court, Madurai, on a consideration of averments made in the petition, counter statement and the oral and documentary evidences found that the petitioner failed to establish that 70 sovereigns of gold given to the first respondent at the time of marriage are continue to be in her custody and further taking into consideration, after the birth of the child, the first respondent left for her parental home and taking into consideration Ex.P8, which disclose the fact that the father of the first respondent had the house property at Madurai, forms the opinion that the respondent's family has considerable means and has immovable property and being the lawful wedded husband and biological father of the child, he is bound to pay the maintenance due to raise of essential commodities and inflationary trend, has directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.4,000/- pe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
