Point of law: after granting of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, he has attempted to comply with the said order, but the same was thwarted by the revision petitioner/wife. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since the competent Subordinate Court has already granted the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and that the same was not complied with, the present contention of the respondent that the petitioner alone had neglected and refused to live with the respondent cannot be entertained and the same is liable for rejection. More over, the respondent has not taken any proceedings challenging the finding of the trial Court that the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the revision petitioner

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records from the trial Court pertaining to the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in M.C.No.33 of 2012, dated 18.06.2013 fixing a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance of the petitioner and enhance the same and fix a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner by allowing this revision.)

1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.33 of 2012, dated 18.06.2013 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Madurai.

2. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.07.1997, that due to their wed-lock, a male child by name Madhesh was born to them on 13.11.1998 and that subsequently, there arose misunderstanding between them and they are living separately.

3. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2005 claiming divorce, that the revision petitioner has filed a petition in H.M.O.P. No.90 of 2007 claiming the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, that the Family Court has passed a common Judgment, dated 15.11.2011, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the husband and allowed the petition filed by the wife granting the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.

4. It is also not in dispute that the revision petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, has filed a case in M.C.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and that after enquiry, the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 08.09.2009, granting residence order. Thereafter, the revision petitioner, by invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C, has filed the case in M.C.33 of 2012, claiming monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/-. The respondent has filed the counter statement, disputing the liability and also the quantum of maintenance claimed by her. In the last paragraph of the counter statement, he expressed his readiness to pay at Rs.1,000/- per month and sought permission of the Court to pay the said sum. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, upon considering the evidence and on hearing both the sides, has passed the impugned order, dated 18.06.2013, directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at Rs. 2,000/- to the revision petitioner from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance amount fixed by the trial Court, the wife has come forward with the present revision, seeking enhancement.

5. Whether the quantum of maintenance amount fixed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in M.C.No.33 of 2012, dated 18.06.2013, is liable to be enhanced ? is the point for consideration.

6. As already pointed out, the competent Court has already dismissed the divorce petition filed by the respondent and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that despite the specific order was passed for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent has not chosen to live with the revision petitioner.

7. It is not the specific case of the respondent that after granting of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, he has attempted to comply with the said order, but the same was thwarted by the revision petitioner/wife. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, since the competent Subordinate Court has already granted the relief of restitution of conjugal rights and that the same was not complied with, the present contention of the respondent that the petitioner alone had neglected and refused to live with the respondent cannot be entertained and the same is liable for rejection. More over, the respondent has not taken any proceedings challenging the finding of the trial Court that the respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the revision petitioner.