The court emphasized the importance of proving the relationship between the parties and the birth of the child in maintenance cases, applying a broad interpretation of the term 'wife' and considering the marginalized sections of society in achieving social justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 23.03.2021.)

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.26 of 2019, dated 23.03.2021 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, granting maintenance.

2. The first respondent, alleging that the marriage between her and the revision petitioner was solemnized on 26.01.2018 at the petitioner's parents home, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli and due to their wedlock, the second respondent was born to them; has filed an application claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner has filed counter statement disputing the very marriage and also the paternity to the second respondent and consequently, liability to pay maintenance.

3. During enquiry, the first respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The revision petitioner has examined himself as R.W.1 and exhibited one document as Ex.R.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, upon considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order, dated 23.03.2021, holding that the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents and directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance for each of the respondents from the date of filing of the petition and the maintenance amount should be paid on or before 5th of every English Calender Month and further directed the revision petitioner to pay the entire arrears of maintenance amount within one month from the date of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present revision.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

5. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's parents have given 200 sovereigns of gold jewels, 11 sovereigns of gold minor chain, 5 sovereigns of gold bracelet and one sovereign gold ring were given as dowry as demanded; that they have also provided house hold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- as demanded by the respondent's parents; that the second petitioner was born on 14.10.2018 at Annai Velankanni Hospital, Palayamkottai; that though the respondent was very much affectionate towards the first petitioner initially, due to ill advice of his parents, he started to demand Rs.25 lakhs as dowry; that since the first petitioner failed to fulfill his obligation, the respondent started to avoid the first petitioner by all means; that the first petitioner tolerated all the harassments made by him and his parents considering the future of her marital life; that the petitioner went for her delivery to her parents home in the month of April 2018; that subsequently the respondent avoided the petitioner and failed to maintain her; that though the birth of the second petitioner was informed to the respondent immediately, he has come to the Hospital only after five days; that when the first petitioner asked the respondent as to why he was avoiding her, for which, the respondent openly stated that without giving Rs.25 lakhs as additional dowry, he will not live together with the first petitioner and that because of the act of the respondent , the petitioners are living separately and struggling for their livelihood.

6. It is their further case that the respondent is working in ATG Tyre company, Gangaikondan as Supervisor and is getting more than Rs.50,000/- as monthly salary; that the respondent owns 11 houses in Sankar Nagar and he is getting more than Rs.90,000/- per month as rent and that since the respondent is legally bounded to maintain the petitioners, the respondent is liable to pay monthly maintenance.

7. T