Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1187
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
U. Alaguraja – Petitioner
Vs.
A. Malaiammal – Respondent
Crl. RC. (md). No. 413 of 2015 and M.P. (MD). No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 20-01-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. T. Selvan.
A husband has a legal duty to maintain his wife, and a separated spouse can claim maintenance to prevent vagrancy. One third of the husband's monthly salary can be awarded as maintenance to the wife.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125 of Cr.P.C - 125 - 24 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a duty on a husband to maintain his wife and children. The court emphasized that a husband cannot wilfully refuse or neglect to maintain his wife and that a separated spouse can claim maintenance to prevent vagrancy. The court also highlighted that a wife can stay away from her husband if she is ill-treated or if her husband fails to maintain her. The court noted that one third of the husband's monthly salary can be awarded as maintenance to the wife. The court found that the husband's admission of the wife's status and the wife's inability to maintain herself justified the maintenance order.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a maintenance petition against her husband, claiming that he failed to maintain her and that she was unable to support herself. The trial court ordered the husband to pay a monthly sum of Rs.2,500/- towards maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's order, stating that the husband's admission of the wife's status and her inability to maintain herself justified the maintenance order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the husband was obligated to maintain his wife and if the maintenance order was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a husband cannot wilfully refuse or neglect to maintain his wife and that a separated spouse can claim maintenance to prevent vagrancy. The court also emphasized that one third of the husband's monthly salary can be awarded as maintenance to the wife.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order directing the husband to pay maintenance to the wife was affirmed.
1. The Revision Petitioner/Husband has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.03.2015 in M.C.No.67 of 2014 passed by the Learned Family Court Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The Learned Family Court Judge, Tirunelveli, while passing the impugned order in M.C.No.67 of 2014 (filed by the respondent/wife) on 17.03.2015 had among other things observed at paragraph No.7 that "... considering the poverty status of the petitioner (respondent/wife) and also in view of the fact that the Husband/Revision Petitioner had himself admitted that the respondent is his wife" and held that the wife was to be maintained by the Husband (Revision Petitioner) and allowed the petition in part by directing the Revision Petitioner (Husband) to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent/wife towards maintenance before 10th of every month and the said amount was to be paid from the date of filing of petition (M.C.No.67 of 2014) viz., 20.09.2013 till date and further directed the Revision Petitioner (Husband) to pay the entire arrears (till the day of passing of the order) within a period of two months.
3. Being aggrieved against the order dated 17.03.2015 in M.C.No.67 of 2014 by the Learned Family Court Judge, Tirunelveli, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition primarily contending that the impugned order of the Family Court dated 17.03.2015 in M.C.No.67 of 2014 is against Law and facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that the trial court had failed to appreciate the scope and purview of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contends that the respondent/wife is having sufficient means to maintain herself and furthermore, she is receiving rental income from the house and also she is in receipt of income from the cattle given by the Government and in fact, the Revision Petitioner/Husband is only receiving a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month, after deductions.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Husband brings it to the notice of this Court that the respondent/wife was already married to one Mupidathi and all the documents described 'Mupidathi' as husband and in fact, the present respondent/wife had already given her consent for divorce and withdrawal of the petition submitted by her before the District Legal Services Authority. In fact, in the said withdrawal petition, she had affixed her thumb impression.
7. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Revision Petitioner is that the trial court had failed to take into consideration that the Revision Petitioner/Husband is maintaining himself from the meagre salary received by him.
8. Lastly, it is represented on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/Husband that the trial court in the impugned order had not stated from which date the respondent/wife is living separately from the Revision Petitioner etc.
9. Today, when the main Criminal Revision Petition has come up for hearing, there is no representation on the side of the respondent/wife either in person or through Learned Counsel. Furthermore, it comes to be known that the Respondent/wife was served of the notice in the present Criminal Revision Petition on 28.09.2015.
10. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Husband and noticed his submissions.
11. At this stage, this Court very relevantly points out that in as much as the notice was served on 28.09.2015 on the respondent/wife in the present Criminal Revision Petition and in spite of the same, there being no representation on the side of the respondent/wife either in person or through Learned Counsel, this Court is perforced to pass the orders in the main Criminal Revision Petition on merits.
12. It transpires from the contents of M.C.No.39 of 2013 (filed by the Respondent/wife as petitioner before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and later,
