The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a divorced wife to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consideration of the husband's financial capacity in determining the maintenance amount for the minor child.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 24.02.2020 passed in M.C.No.17 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Tambaram and thus allow this Criminal Revision.)

1. This Revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2020 of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram in M.C.No.17 of 2017 and by which the first respondent/wife was awarded with the monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- and the second respondent minor son was awarded with the monthly maintenance of Rs.80,000/-. The husband/father being aggrieved is the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel Mr.M.Gnanasekar for the petitioner and M/s. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the parties were relatives and the first respondent/wife had scant regard for the matrimony and matrimonial life, had left the petitioner voluntarily. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had filed an application for divorce before the superior Court of California, U.S.A and the same was also granted on 26.04.2018. He further submit that the first respondent/wife also appeared in the said proceeding and as a matter of fact of monetary payments were also ordered in the said proceedings, which is also received by the first respondent. He further submitted that before the dispute started between the parties, huge sums of money were paid to the first respondent/wife by the petitioner and the same were not at all taken into account by the Trial Court. In any event, he would submit that the first respondent/wife is a qualified M.C.A. Graduate and she is capable of maintaining herself and the Trial Court ought not to have granted maintenance to the first respondent/wife.

4. As far as the maintenance to the second respondent child is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit being the father, the petitioner is liable to maintain the child. It is also true that the child is suffering from Autism and needs special care. However, he would submit that when the father is willing to discharge his pious obligation, the first respondent is not even showing the child even to the grand parents, who are now residing in Chennai. Therefore, he submit that any order of payment of maintenance should also be coupled with the visitation rights for the petitioner as well as his parents. He further submits that the sum of Rs.80,000/- is arrived at without any proper basis and the amount is exorbitant.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents would submit that though the first respondent/wife is qualified, she is unable to maintain herself because of the fact that the child is Autistic and she had to be at home and to accompany the child for the treatment, schooling, etc., and therefore she is unable to go for employment and maintain herself. She would submit that it is only an interim arrangement, which is ordered by the Court in California and the divorce is not granted on willful desertion of the first respondent/wife. It is not also on account of any mutual consent. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to maintain an application for maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. She would submit that only the barest minimum amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded by the Trial Court to the wife. She would further submit that she had furnished details of the expenses to be incurred in respect of the second respondent child in the proof affidavit and had also marked the relevant documents in justification of the claim, in the form of treatment of physiotherapy, school receipts, certificates etc., are marked and as many as 41 Exhibits were marked on behalf of the respondent/wife herein. Per contra, no evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly awarded the maintenance. This apart, she would contend