Madras High Court
M.V.Prema vs K.V.F.Maharaja on 8 January, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATEDL: 08.01.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.5 of 2015 M.V.Prema . . . petitioner/Respondent Vs. K.V.F.Maharaja . . . Respondent/Petitioner Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul dated 05.03.2014 and to set aside the same and to confirm the order of monthly allowance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani in M.C.No.7 of 2010. !For petitioner :Mr.S.Alagarsamy ^For respondent :Mr.N.Mohan :ORDER
By consent, this Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal.
2.The revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent and she filed M.C.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month along with a cost of Rs.1,500/-.
3.The trial Court, after a hot contest, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, payable on or before 5th of every English Calender month and also arrears within a period of two months from the date of the order along with cost of Rs.1,500/-, vide order dated 31.07.2012.
4.The respondent herein/husband, aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded, has filed Crl.R.P.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/-, vide impugned judgment dated 05.03.2014.
5.Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, the wife has filed this Criminal Revision Case.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 17.11.1977. Out of wedlock, two sons were born and they have got married and well-settled in their life and the respondent got married one Rajeswari and thereafter, he has started neglecting the family. In this regard, the petitioner has also filed a private complaint in C.C.No.100 of 2009 and the same is pending adjudication.
7.According to the revision petitioner, on account of the old age and she being a home maker, she is not able to get any income independently. Therefore, she filed a maintenance case, claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the petition.
8.The respondent has filed a counter admitting the marriage, birth of two male children. Further, he contended that he has spent lakhs and lakhs of rupees for their son and both of them have got married and well-settled in their life. It is further contended by the respondent that the private complaint filed by the petitioner in C.C.No.100 of 2009 is unsustainable and it is abuse of process of law and further added that he is always taking care of his wife and sons and he is also paying water consumption charges, house tax and electricity consumption charges in respect of the house, in which, this petitioner/wife is residing and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9.During the course of enquiry, the revision petitioner/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.4 and the respondent/husband examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exhibits R.1 to R.4.
10.The Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, on a careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, has fixed a sum of Rs.5,000/- payable by way of maintenance from the date of the petition along with cost of Rs.1,500/-.
11.Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has field Crl.R.P.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
12.The Revisional Court found that since the sons of the respondent as well as the petitioner are settled and are in good position, there is a possibility that they are sending money to the revision petitioner/wife also. The Revisional Court also recorded a fact that the respondent/husband was employed in a high position in a Public Sector Undertaking and there is no possibility of receiving pension and no evidence to that effect has been produced and further that, there is no proof to show that he has deposited huge sum of money in Bank and getting interest and further that, he is also suffering from diabetic disease. The revisional Court, also took into consideration the submissions made by the respondent therein/revision petitioner herein that he has also got married to another woman and that he has to maintain that family also. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the Revisional Court reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month, vide impugned order dated 05.03.2014.
13.Challenging the legality of the same, the wife has filed this Criminal Revision Case.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now aged 57 years and admittedly, she is a home-maker and she is not in possession of any property and she has no source of income. Out of wedlock, two sons were born and hence, marital relationship is not disputed. Therefore, the respondent has to maintain his wife/revision petitioner.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further submitted that Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Revisional Court is very meagre, considering the present cost of living. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the award of the Revisional court.
16.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would contend that as rightly observed by the Revisional Court, though the respondent was employed in high position in a Public Sector Undertaking, either he has not received any pension or terminal benefits or deposited the same in Bank and thereby earning interest.
17.It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that admittedly, the petitioner as well as the respondent are residing under the same roof and he is paying water consumption charges as well as electricity charges and the sons are also sending some money to the revision petitioner and he is also aged about 63 years and suffering, due to age-related ailments and he is not in a position to pay maintenance as ordered the lower Court and considering all the above, the Revisional Court has rightly reduced the maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.
18.This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and perused the materials produced in the form of typed set of papers.
19.Calculation and quantum of maintenance is purely a guess work and there is no straight jacket formula in arriving at the quantum of maintenance. Admittedly, the revision petitioner and the respondent are residing under the same roof and the fact that the respondent is paying the water consumption charges and electricity consumption charges is also not in serious dispute. Of course, there is absolutely no proof to show that the married sons of the revision petitioner and respondent are contributing anything either to the revision petitioner or to the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was employed in high position in a Public Sector Undertaking in Bangalore and after retirement, he has settled at Dindigul. Although the Revisional Court recorded the fact that there is no evidence to show that the respondent has received pensionary benefits and he deposited the same in Bank and thereby earning interest, the fact remains that even in the absence of pensionary benefits, the respondent would have received same amount of money by way of terminal benefits. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute and another proceedings for divorce are also pending. Therefore, the respondent being the husband of the petitioner is bound to maintain her.
20.This Court, in the earlier paragraph has observed that calculation and quantum of maintenance is purely a guess work and there is no straight jacket formula in arriving at the quantum of maintenance. This Court, also taking into consideration of the fact that the respondent is aged about 63 years and suffering from age-related diseases and he is also paying water consumption charges and electricity consumption charges, is of the view that the quantum of maintenance, awarded by the trial court, reduced by the Revisional Court, is to be fixed at Rs.4,500/- and the same would meet the ends of justice.
21.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.03.2014, reducing the quantum of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,000/- is modified and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,500/- towards maintenance to the revision petitioner from the date of petition along with arrears to the revision petitioner herein. In all other aspects, the order passed by the Revisional Court is confirmed. M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
vs Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 is closed.
08.01.2015 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vs To:
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Palani.
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.5 of 2015