POINT OF LAW: FIXATION OF MONTHLY MAINTENANCE - First respondent as well as the revision petitioner are financially sound- Educational expenses of the respondents 2 and 3, status of the parties and the present economic scenario, the fixation of the monthly maintenance

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 31.01.2017 made in M.C.No.22 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.)

1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.25 of 2016, dated 31.01.2017 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 05.11.2013 in Ganga Auditorim at Kollam and that due to their wed-lock, the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them. It is also not in dispute that subsequently there arose disputes and misunderstanding between them, that they are living separately and that the respondents 2 and 3 have been under the care and custody of the first respondent.

3. The first respondent for herself and for her minor daughters, by invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C, filed the case in M.C.No.25 of 2016, claiming monthly maintenance at Rs.20,000/- for herself and monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/- each to her minor daughtes, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli. The revision petitioner has filed a counter statement by alleging that the first respondent was living in adultery and she was having necessary means and income to maintain herself and her minor daughters, disputed the liability. The learned Judge of Family Court, Tirunelveli, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of the both sides, has passed the impugned order on 31.01.2017, directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 and rejected the claim of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents 2 and 3 minor daughters, the father has come forward with the present revision.

4. Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed at Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 by the learned Judge of Family Court, Tirunelveli, in M.C.No.22 of 2016, dated 31.01.2017, is liable to be reduced ? is the point for consideration.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the first respondent, who lives in adultery, has left the petitioner without any sufficient cause and that the trial Court has miserably failed to consider the unfortunate case of the first respondent that her father had lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli on the adulterous character of the first respondent. As already pointed out, the trial Court after considering the evidence adduced, has rejected the claim of maintenance putforth by the first respondent and admittedly, the first respondent has not challenged the finding of the trial Court, dismissing her claim. Since the first respondent has not challenged the order of the trial Court rejecting her maintenance claim and that the revision petitioner has preferred the above revision challenging the quantum of maintenance fixed by the trial Court, it is absolutely not necessary to probe the character and the conduct of the first respondent.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner/respondent in his chief examination would admit specifically that he has a duty to protect her minor daughters and that he is duty bound to give maintenance to both them. During cross examination, when a specific question was put to R.W.1 that he is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and two children, he would reply that he is ready to pay maintenance to his children, but not to his wife. More over, the revision petitioner has also not challenged the finding of the trial Court that he is liable to pay compensation to his minor children. The only challenge is with respect to the quantum of maintenance fixed by the trial Court. As already pointed out, the first respondent has claimed monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 and the