Madras High Court
P.Mohanraj vs M.Udayalakshmi on 13 August, 2015
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.244 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011
P.Mohanraj ... Petitioner
-vs-
M.Udayalakshmi ... Respondent
Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, against the order dated 06.01.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.1921 of 2008 in
M.C.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Madurai.
!For petitioner : Mr.V.Sitharanjandas
^For respondent : Mr.J.Sivaram
:ORDER
The respondent herein originally filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.29 of 2004 against her husband under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming a maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai, after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, ordered a sum of Rs.1,000/- as monthly maintenance to the wife. At that point of time, the salary of the petitioner was Rs.11,000/- per month. Thereafter, the wife moved an application under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C., claiming enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. The Court, after consideration of relevant materials, enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the salary slip of the revision petitioner, which is filed along with the typed set of papers. The salary slip has been issued in the month of January in the year 2010. As per the salary details furnished, the monthly gross earnings of the petitioner is shown as Rs.18,835/- and the monthly gross deductions are shown as Rs.15,917/-. The take home salary has been shown as Rs.2,918/-. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when the take home salary is only Rs.2,918/- it is impossible for the husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as ordered by the Court below, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside or the quantum of maintenance has to be reduced.
3.Whether this contention is acceptable is the only issue raised in this revision petition. A perusal of the salary slip would reveal that the deductions from the salary, on various heads, includes not only the compulsory deductions on account of obligations arising under a statute, but also the optional deductions, say for example, deductions on account of the loan incurred for his welfare, higher amount of subscription in respect of GPF and drawal of festival advance, Society loan etc. These deductions represent money already enjoyed by the husband or to be enjoyed by him in future. Therefore, the amount of Rs.15,917/- which is shown as deductions did not really represent the money spent on somebody else, but the money utilised for the benefit of the husband himself. Therefore, these deductions cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding the quantum of maintenance. If that be so, the amount of Rs.3,000/- as directed by the Court below, cannot be said to be excessive.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife is having her own house for living and she is running a tea shop and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, the quantum of maintenance awarded is disproportionate to her income.
5.So far as the financial aspect is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the wife is earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by way of running a tea shop. So far as income from tea shop is concerned, no document has been filed to show that income. By the nature of allegations made, one would expect that some documents to be produced to show that there is a tea shop from which the wife has got income.
6.There is also no proof to show that the wife is the owner of a house. Even assuming that the wife is in possession of a house, still for the other requirements, the husband has to provide maintenance.
7.Under such circumstances, the impugned order does not require any interference. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai..