The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in determining the appropriate amount of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on the evidence presented and the economic status of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against the orders passed by the Family Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in M.C.No.7 of 2017, dated 15.03.2017.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in M.C. No. 7 of 2017, dated 15.03.2017 on the file of the Family Court, Thirunelveli.

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2015 at Arulmigu Salaikumarasamy Temple, Thirunelveli, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and that subsequently, there arose misunderstanding between them and they are living separately. It is also not in dispute that the revision petitioner has filed a petition in HMOP.No.273 of 2016 for divorce and that after enquiry the said petition was ordered to be dismissed. The respondent, by invoking Section 125 Cr. P.C., has filed a case in M.C.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Thirunelveli claiming maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month. The revision petitioner has filed a counter statement disputing the claim of the respondent and prayed for dismissal of the same. The learned Judge of the Family Court, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of the both sides, has passed the impugned order on 15.03.2017 directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of petition and also directed to pay the arrears within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has come forward with the present revision.

3. Whether the order of the Family Court passed in M.C.No. 07 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / husband would submit that the revision petitioner has not challenged the finding of the trial Court that the respondent / wife is entitled to get maintenance and the challenge is only with respect to the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner himself has admitted in his chief examination before the trial Court that he can only pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as monthly maintenance, that the trial Court ought to have appreciated the bonafide attitude of the petitioner, that the revision petitioner has also admitted in his cross examination that he was jobless at that time, but the trial Court has failed to consider the same and passed the impugned order on imaginary grounds and that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced.

6. The respondent's specific case is that the revision petitioner was working as a sales representative in Selva Vinayagar Steel Emporium at Tumblip, Maharastra State and was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month and that the revision petitioner is owning several houses and vacant Plots and that therefore, he is having necessary means to pay the maintenance amount.

7. The defence of the revision petitioner is that he was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- only at Bombay, that since he had taken leave for giving medical treatment to the respondent, his service was terminated and that he is only getting on income of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- at Thirunelveli.

8. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner in his chief examination itself would say that he can pay maintenance amount at Rs.1,500/- per month. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner at the time of arguments before this Court would submit that the revision petitioner is prepared to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned trial Judge, by observing that the respondent is 30 years old and therefore, it is very difficult for her to live at Thirunelveli with Rs.1,500/- and that since the revision petitioner was having experience and he was getting salary of Rs