ORDER :

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to call for records in M.C.No.8 of 2012 and to set aside the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from 27.07.2012 to 01.03.2013 and thereafter, Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.3,000/- per month from 27.07.2012 as maintenance to the second respondent/minor daughter. The maintenance amounts were ordered to be paid on or before 5th of every month.

2. The 1st respondent wife had filed M.C.No.8 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for her and Rs.5,000/- for her minor daughter in total Rs.15,000/- per month and in the petition, she had stated that the marriage between her and the petitioner/husband took place on 05.04.2010 and that at the time of marriage 25 sovereigns jewel and Rs.1 lakh was given as dowry and that the matrimonial life was pleasant for some time. Thereafter, there was a quarrel between them. While so, out of their wedlock on 14.12.2011, they delivered a girl child and after the birth of the child, the petitioner/ husband did not come to see the child. Thereafter, 21.01.2012 compromise talks were held in the presence of well wishers following which, the petitioner/husband had taken the first respondent wife to his Junior Paternal Uncle's house and thereafter, left her. Therefore, the respondent/ wife lodged a complaint against the petitioner/husband before the Thiruthuraipoondi All Women Police Station and the case was registered in Crime No.4/2012 for offence under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 506(i), 406 IPC. The petitioner husband was working as a Technical Assistant in Bangalore Defence Research Development Organisation and was earning Rs.50,000/- and he was also owning a Tea Estate through which, he was getting a further income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Thereby, the respondent/wife had filed a petition seeking for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the daughter.

3. The petitioner/husband had filed a counter stating that the marriage between them took place on 05.04.2010 and that the Reception was held at his house on 13.04.2010. The further averment in the counter is that he hails from a poor family and that his family members were workers in a Tea Estate and since, the petitioner / husband was supporting his family members, it was objected by the respondent/wife and there was incompatible between them. While so, without any reason, the respondent/ wife had left from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, compromise talks were held in the presence of well wishers of both the families following which, the respondent / wife had apologized and agreed to stay with the petitioner/husband. The further averment in the counter is that the respondent/ wife does not qualify with the requirements of the essential ingredients as envisaged under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. On the side of the respondent/wife, she examined herself as witness and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

5. On the side of the petitioner/ husband, he examined himself as RW.1 and his Junior Paternal Uncle Kalaimani was examined as RW.2 and marked 13 documents.

6. The learned Magistrate after hearing both parties and taking into consideration the documents on record, had passed an impugned order dated 28.02.2014 in M.C.No.8/2012 08/2012 which is now under challenge.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that it is the case of the petitioner/husband that the respondent/ wife does not qualify with the requirements of the essential ingredients as envisaged under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and nowhere in the petition, an averment has been made by the wife that she is unable to maintain herself. Further, she has also suppressed the fact that she was employed with the Postal Department. He would further submit that the petitioner/husband was subjected to cross examination and du