The court emphasized that maintenance amounts must match the living standards and financial capabilities of both parties, rejecting the husband's claim of poverty due to his affluent background.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Revision Case No.756 of 2021 had been filed as against the order dated 23.03.2021 passed in C.R.P. No. 11 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur modifying the order dated 14.02.2018 made in M.C. No. 30 of 2014 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, so far as the maintenance awarded to the second Petitioner/minor child alone is concerned.

2. Criminal Original Petition No.8928 of 2021 had been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.03.2021 passed in C.R.P. No. 11 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur modifying the order dated 14.02.2018 made in M.C. No. 30 of 2014 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, in entirety .

3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision, are as follows:-

3.1. As per the averments in M.C. No. 30 of 2014, the marriage between the first Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnised on 08.12.2008 at Arulmighu Sivanmalai Murugan Kovil, Kangeyam as per Hindu rites and customs followed by a reception held on 09.12.2008 at Saravana Mahal, Tiruppur. It was stated that the marriage expenses were borne by the parents of the first Petitioner. According to the first Petitioner, at the time of marriage, 100 sovereigns of gold jewels apart from sreedhana articles worth several lakhs were presented. That apart, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was paid to the Respondent as per his demand besides a Honda City Car was presented. However, even on the second day, the Respondent, under the influence of alcohol, behaved rudely towards her. Further, the first Petitioner was prevented from meeting her parents or to talk to them over phone. The brother-in-law Yoganathan also started ill-treating the first Petitioner and he tortured her verbally, physically and sexually. After marriage, the first Petitioner came to know that the Respondent is a chain smoker and he used to engage in gambling, drinking and all other immoral activities. The first Petitioner was not given proper food and she was not permitted to watch television. Except a long chain, the other jewels of the first Petitioner were taken by the Respondent and they were either pledged or sold. When it was questioned by the first Petitioner, she was severely assaulted. Subsequently, the Respondent, without the knowledge of the first Petitioner vacated the house by taking away all belonging such as silver vessels, cot, bureau, sofa sets, television set, refrigerator, washing machine and silk sarees when the first Petitioner was in her parents house for delivery of the child. When the birth of the second Petitioner was intimated, it was stated that he was born on an inauspicious date. During the month of May 2012, when the Respondent demanded money to over come the loss suffered in his business, the parents of the first Petitioner refused. While so, on 04.06.2012, the Respondent assaulted the first Petitioner and she was hospitalised. In this context, a complaint was given based on which the Respondent was arrested and subsequently let out on bail. It was stated that the Respondent had also filed HMOP No. 200 of 2014 for divorce with an intention to contract another marriage. As the Petitioners are left without any source of income for their livelihood and they are depending on the parents of the first Petitioner for everything, the present Maintenance Case was filed seeking to direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the Petitioners for their monthly maintenance.

3.2. On notice, the Respondent