O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated

20.02.2020 in M.C.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the learned learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

2. The petitioner is the husband and the 2nd respondent is the minor son of the first respondent. The first respondent/wife and the second respondent- son, filed the Maintenance case in M.C.No.2 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, seeking maintenance under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C from the petitioner herein. The learned Judge, after hearing both sides and also considering the oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the petition, by directing the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife and a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the second respondent/son. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/husband is before this Court by way of this Revision.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 29.03.2021, this Court directed the learned counsel to take notice to the respondents, returnable by 15.04.2021 and proof of service to be filed by then, however, today, it is represented by the learned counsel that the proof of service is yet to be filed and it shows the lethargic attitude of the petitioner in contesting the case. It is to be noted that Maintenance case was filed in the year 2010, however, the case was disposed of only in the year 2020, after a decade. Therefore, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by the petitioner is decreed, naturally, the opposite party has to join with the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the civil Court and in the instant case, the respondents have not chosen to comply with the order passed by the civil Court and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to get maintenance. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband under this section, if she is living in adultery or without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent and as such, the first respondent / wife is not entitled to get maintenance on the ground i.e., without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband in spite of the order passed by the civil Court at KGF in the petition filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The final contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Ex.R3, the petitioner was drawing only a sum of Rs.7,142/ per month pension, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate on assumption and surmises has come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is getting pension more than Rs.13,000/- per month without any materials.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

6. It is seen from the records, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 09.10.2000, and out of their wedlock, the second respondent was born to them. The case of the wife/first respondent against the husband//petitioner is that she was turned out of the matrimonial home, by the petitioner after giving her severe beating on 16.07.2008, since when she and her minor son have been living with the father of the wife. The reason alleged by the wife for her turning out from matrimonial home was that on that day, the husband had demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold to be brought by her home from her parents and the wife declined to oblige him asserting that her parents were not in a position to give her that the dowry whereupon, the husband beaten her and then turned her out of their house. On the other hand, the husband in reply to the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. denied the wife having been beaten and turned out of the matrimonial home and she left the matri