JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in MC No.60 of 2018, dated 17.02.2020 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.

2. It is seen from the records that the marriage between the petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife was solemnized on 27.08.2015. Out of the wedlock, they begotten a child, who is the 2nd respondent herein. Due to matrimonial tiff, the petitioner/husband filed HMOP No.224 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai, for divorce. At that same time, the 1st respondent/wife filed MC No.60 of 2018 seeking maintenance for her and her child, namely the 2nd respondent herein. Based on the petition filed by the petitioner/husband, the trial court has granted decree for divorce in HMOP No.224 of 2018. The trial court has also allowed the MC NO.60 of 2018 filed by the respondents herein, by order, dated 17.02.2020 and thereby awarded monthly maintenance for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the order, dated 17.02.2020 made in MC No. 60 of 2018, on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai, the petitioner/husband is before this court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The main contention raised by the petitioner/husband is that his wife without any sufficient cause, deserted him and further, she is a M.E Decree Holder and she has means to maintain herself and her wife subjected him to cruelty and due to it, he filed HMOP No.224 of 2018 for divorce and decree of divorcé was granted and hence, the petitioner/husband is not liable to pay any maintenance and prays that the Criminal Revision has to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner/husband demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty and drove her from the matrimonial home and she has no means to maintain her and her children and the petitioner/husband is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents and prays that the Criminal Revision has to be dismissed.

6. It is admitted on both sides, the marriage solemnised between the petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife and the 2nd respondent is their child. In this case, it is to be decided whether without any sufficient cause, the 1st respondent/wife deserted from the matrimonial home and whether the 1st respondent/wife has means to maintain her or not.

7. Further, it is admitted on both sides that the petitioner/husband is working as a Software Engineer. Before the trial court, the petitioner/husband himself was examined as RW1. RW1 during his evidence stated that due to cruelty by his wife, he left his job and now, he is unemployed. To prove the fact that he left the job and removed from service, no document was filed. The petitioner/husband is a Software Engineer and it is easier for him to get a new job at any time in the IT Profession. Without filing any document to show that at the time of filing the maintenance petition, he was unemployed, the contention of the petitioner/husband that he was unemployed at the relevant point time is not at all acceptable.

8. Before the trial court, the 1st respondent/wife was examined as PW1. PW1 stated during her evidence that her husband demanded Rs.10 Lakhs and two wheeler and subjected her to cruelty. But to prove the above contention, she has not given any complaint to the police. It was admitted by PW1 during her cross examination that the petitioner/husband has filed HMOP No.224 of 2018 for divorce. PW1 also admitted during her cross examination that only after her husband filed HMOP No.224 of 2018 for divorce, she filed the maintenance MC No.60 of 2018.

9. As per the version of PW1, her husband demanded dowry and due to it, she left from the matrimonial home. It is to be noted here that when the 1st respondent/wife came to her parental home, she has not taken any steps for reunion. Further, PW1 has not filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. If