ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records relating to the order dated 05.06.2020 passed in Crl.R.P.No.4 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, confirming order dated 10.01.2017 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai and to set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

2.The petitioner's contention is that the respondent herein originally filed a petition before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi under section 125 of Cr.P.C., praying for residential order, maintenance for a sum of Rs.5,000/- for herself and a sum of Rs.5,000/- to her child and for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the harassment faced by her and for refund of sreedhana Rs.50,000/- and 25 sovereigns of jewels which were given during her marriage and for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner herein under Domestic Violence Act and the same was allowed by order dated 10.01.2017 with direction, directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each for the respondent and her child and also refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- and 25 sovereigns of jewels to the respondent herein and further to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of child. As against the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Session Judge, Sivagangai and the same was dismissed by order dated 05.06.2020. As against the dismissal order, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, he got married with the respondent on

27.01.2005 at Karaikudi and after the marriage, one child was born to them. Thereafter, the child was taken to Madurai for taking treatment at that time, on 07.06.2012, the respondent slipped and fell down while carrying the water pot, for which also necessary treatment was given at the expenses of the petitioner and the respondent had made request that she will go to her sister house for week, accordingly she was permitted. Thereafter, she refused to come back to matrimonial life for the reasons best known to her. Thereafter, the respondent filed the petition seeking maintenance with false averments and the trial Court allowed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2014 by order dated 10.01.2017 which was confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai in Crl.R.P.No.4 of

2017 dated 05.06.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed on the following grounds.

4. The respondent/wife is not entitled to any maintenance as per section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is working as gold smith making small jewels for small jewellery shops and he has no permanent income to fix the quantum of maintenance and he has to take care of his age old mother. The petitioner is all along willing to live with the respondent, but the respondent herein voluntarily deserted there petitioner thereby the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. The Appellate Court despite the ground raised by the petitioner that the relief granted by the trial court cannot be granted under section 125 of Cr.P.C, but the Appellate Court treated the application filed under Domestic Voilence Act by taking account discussion made by the trial Court order. In fact the trial Court order itself read that the present order is passed only under section 125 Cr.P.C., Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court as well as Revision Court are liable to be set aside.

5. No counter was filed by the respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court has passed the order under section 125 Cr.P.C by directing the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent herein and her child and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- and to return back the 25 sovereigns of jewels