The central legal point established in the judgment is that a husband is bound to provide maintenance to his wife and children as per Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, regardless of marital disputes or divorce.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. To allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated 05.08.2013 passed in M.C.No.12/2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam.)

1. The criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.08.2013, passed in M.C.No.12/2011, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam. In this matter, the criminal revision petitioner has filed the revision through his power of attorney agent Ziauddin Ahmed. At one stage of the matter, it was reported to this Court that the power of attorney agent had died. Further, the counsel who had filed vakalat for the power of attorney agent had withdrawn his appearance and after the same had been recorded by this Court, notice had been sent to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner having been served, thereafter the matter had been listed by printing the name of the revision petitioner in the cause list.

2. Notice was also ordered to the respondents and they having been served, they have also not entered appearance either in person or through counsel.

3. This Court therefore proceeded to dispose of the criminal revision petition on the basis of the materials available on record in the matter.

4. Briefly stated, according to the respondents' case, the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was celebrated on 04.12.1996 as per the Mohamadian customs and rites and thereafter, they were living as husband and wife at Nagur and revision petitioner left to Abudhabi for avocation and he took the first respondent to Abudhabi during 2000 and out of the marital life, respondents 2 and 3 were born to them and the revision petitioner was employed as a manager at Abudhabi at Adnet Exipition Center and earning a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) in Indian currency and however, with a view to marry another girl, the revision petitioner leaded a prodigal and lavish life without caring for the respondents and on that score, he was often picking up quarrel and fights with the first respondent and also harassing her one way or the other and also further the revision petitioner had also taken away 80 sovereigns of gold presented to the first respondent at the time of the marriage and as well as grabbed the house site presented to her situated at Nagur and by selling the same, the revision petitioner had purchased a site at Karaikal and the revision petitioner often picked up fights and quarrel with the first respondent and finally drove the respondents from the matrimonial home on 04.08.2010 and the respondents are presently living in the house of the first respondent's sister. The revision petitioner also fraudulently created a letter as if he has declared Muthalak to the first respondent at Abudhabi on 07.10.2010. However, the said declaration of Muthalak on the part of the revision petitioner is invalid and the same is not sustainable in law and the respondents were living in affluent condition. The revision petitioner is bound to provide maintenance in tune to their status and entitlement and accordingly prayed for the maintenance in a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the first respondent and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each for the respondents 2 and 3 and hence, they have laid the maintenance case.

5. The revision petitioner through his power of attorney agent had disputed the case of the respondents and admitted the marriage between him and the first respondent on 04.12.1996 and the birth of respondents 2 and 3 out of the said wedlock and according to revision petitioner, it is only the first respondent, who used to pick up quarrel with him using un-parliamentary language whenever he leaves for work. On account of the attitude of the first respondent, the revision petitioner was unable to engage in his work and further, he was also suspended and at present he is only working as a coolie earning Rs.30,000/