The court upheld the lower court's decision, confirming that the husband was providing adequate maintenance and that the wife's demand for an increase was unjustified based on her own income and circumstances.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision had been filed to set aside the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-VI, Family Court, Chennai in M.C. No. 463 of 2016.

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

2.1. The Petitioner is the wife of the Respondent. As per the Petition in M.C. No. 463 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner, her marriage with the Respondent was solemnised on 13.06.1994 at M.R.S. Lakshmi Thirumana Mandapam, Strahans Road, Ottery, Chennai – 600 012 and all the marriage expenses have been borne by her parents. At the time of marriage, her father has given sreedhana items, jewels and Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent as dowry, as has been demanded by then. After marriage, the Respondent arranged the matrimonial house at No.146, T2 Block, Third Floor, Varathammal Thottam 1^st Street, Kellys, Chennai – 600 010. In the course of the matrimonial life, two children have born and they had attained age of majority. The marriage life was peaceful and blissful. However, due to a skin ailment suffered by the Petitioner, there is a change in her appearance. By citing the same, her husband and her children did not associate with her and she was isolated. Therefore, she is confined herself in a room in the same house where the Respondent and children are residing. It was stated that the Respondent is a businessman, who dealt with distribution of water through water can. Later on, he closed the drinking water business and entered the business of driving transport vehicles. Through this business, the Respondent earns atleast Rs.50,000/- per month. The Respondent in the beginning provided all the requirements of the Petitioner food in time, but later refused to provide proper food, cloth and medical expenses. The Petitioner also lodged a complaint before the G-5. Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai complaining that the Respondent did not provide her the basic needs, but the police officials did not take any action thereof. The Respondent being a husband, is duty bound to maintain the Petitioner/Wife by providing shelter, cloth and medical expenses. The Petitioner therefore prayed to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to her.

2.2. The Respondent/husband filed a counter disputing the claim of the Petitioner stating inter alia that the wife is residing under the same roof and she herself had isolated from the company of her husband and children. The monthly expenses for the wife had been met by him, which includes her medical expenses. The Respondent had been paying her a sum of Rs.2,250/- per month for her maintenance apart from providing other basic necessities. The children born to the Petitioner and the Respondent have attained the age of majority. The daughter is studying M.C.A. The son is studying Hotel Management. The Respondent/husband had to take care of the studies of the children and the medical expenses of the wife. The Respondent is the only bread winner in the family. He also has to take care of his aged mother, who is doing all the house hold chores. The grievance projected by the Petitioner by filing the present petition for maintenance is untenable. Therefore, the Respondent/husband sought to dismiss the Petition.

2.3. In M.C. No. 463 of 2016, the Petitioner examined herself as P.W-1 and marked four documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. The Respondent examined himself as R.W-1 and marked one document as Ex.R-1, hand slip with endorsement made by the Petitioner for the expenses incurred by him. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Principal Judge-VI, Family Court, Chennai, by Order dated 19.03.2020 dismissed the Petition in M.C. No. 463 of 2016 by concluding that the Respondent is providing all the basic necessities required by the Petitioner. However, it was directed that the Respondent shall continue to pay the sum of Rs.2,250/- per month, which he is paying the Petitioner all alon