The court modified the maintenance amount to Rs.7,000/- per month, emphasizing the husband's duty to maintain his wife and the need for the amount to reflect the cost of living.

ORDER :

(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.)

This Criminal Revision Case had been filed to set aside the Order dated 13.10.2021 passed in M.C.No.57 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuddalore.

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

2.1. The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnised at TVMS Thirumana Mahal, Cuddalore on 06.04.2011. The Petitioner studied only upto 6^th Standard and she lost her father at young age. Therefore, it is stated that she was brought up by her mother and her elder brother. Similarly, the Respondent studied upto 8^th Standard. At the time of the marriage, the Respondent's family represented that they had 10 acres of agricultural land and two brick built houses. It was also stated that the Respondent was the owner of TATA ACE load vehicle and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent's family demanded dowry of 50 sovereigns of gold to the Petitioner, 10 sovereigns of gold to the Respondent, household articles worth Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs for purchase of two wheeler. Even though the mother of the Petitioner and her brother expressed their inability, ultimately, they agreed to provide 40 sovereigns of gold to the Petitioner, 10 sovereigns to the Respondent, house hold articles worth Rs.3 lakhs, Rs.50,000/- towards dress and Rs.1 lakh for purchase of two wheeler. According to the Petitioner, her mother and brother fulfilled all the demands made by the Respondent and his family by selling one of the properties of their family and by borrowing huge amount at exorbitant rate of interest. According to the Petitioner, on the Nuptial night, it was represented by the Respondent that physical relationship can be had only after fulfilling a vow to God and therefore, during nuptial night, the marriage was not consummated. After a week, the Respondent took the Petitioner to his house and he used to go out during nights saying that he has to ply the vehicle. Further, the Respondent used to go out during nights and return only in the Morning and sleep throughout the day and in this fashion the marriage was not consummated. When this was informed to the mother of the Petitioner, she came and caused an enquiry with the members of the Respondent's family during which they have created an ugly scene. Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent is impotent and that is the reason why, he indulged in such tactics. Thus, inspite of marriage, the Petitioner is living the life of a spinster. Even though the marriage of the Petitioner was performed at a cost of Rs.20,00,000/- the marriage failed, which had resulted in mental illness and suffering for the Petitioner. Ultimately, the Petitioner was driven out from the matrimonial home in June 2015. For the past four years, till the filing of the Petition, the Petitioner had been living with her mother and brother. The Petitioner reserves the right to take separate action regarding her jewel and other articles. It is stated that the Petitioner has no means to maintain herself. Therefore, the Respondent is duty-bound to pay maintenance to her. The Respondent owns 10 acres of land, Tractor, Tata ACE vehicle and is earning substantially. The Respondent has sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore claimed Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance.

2.2. On notice, the Respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the Petition filed for maintenance. The Respondent denied having demanded dowry in any form. The Respondent also stated that he is in receipt of salary of Rs.20,000/- only. The Respondent also denied the allegation that he is impotent and is not fit to consummate the marriage. The Petitioner wanted the Respondent to set up a separate house and it was refused by the Respondent as he has to take care of his aged parents. Therefore, the Petitioner walked out of the mat