1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.314 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sivagnanam :Petitioner/Respondent -Vs- 1.Aruljothi 2.Minor.Jeyasakthi 3.Minor.Vishnuprabu :Respondents/Petitioners (R2 and R3 are represented by R1 as natural guardian.) Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, in M.C.No.5 of 2006 dated 15.02.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.K.Vinayagam ORDER The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the minor children who were arrayed as the respondents 2 and 3 and the present revision is filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2011 made in M.C.No.5 of 2006 filed by the respondents on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. 2.As per the said order, the trial Court has awarded the monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.1,500/- p.m. each to the respondents 2 and 3. 3.Mr.Ravi, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 19.08.1996 as per the wishes of the elders of both the family and Hindu rites and initially,there was no compatibility between them and subsequently,out of the marital wedlock,the respondents 2 and 3 were born 4.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the first respondent making false allegations with regard to the demand of dowry and second marriage, lodged a complaint with the police against the revision petitioner and the father of the revision petitioner was arrested and later, enlarged on bail. During the pendency of the criminal case, the matter was referred to the Social Welfare Officer who has given the report under Ex.R.2, wherein it has been stated that since the revision petitioner is an agriculturalist, the first respondent not used to like the village type of life and join the company of the revision petitioner. 5.It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that since the first respondent has not chosen to join the company of the revision petitioner and that also started to lead an adulterous life, he was constrained to file a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Judge, Sivagangai, in which, the first respondent was also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6.The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the petition in M.C.No.5 of 2006 and would submit that though the first respondent has prayed for a sum of Rs.1,500/- for herself and a sum of Rs.750/- each for the respondents 2 and 3, the lower Court committed a grave error in awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 and in any event, the quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents, is on the higher side. 7.It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that since the first respondent is leading an adulterous life, she is not entitled to get the maintenance and the revision petitioner is willing and ready to pay the reasonable sum towards the maintenance for his children who are the respondents 2 and 3. 8.Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that since the revision petitioner made serious allegations of adultery against the first respondent and started harassing her on the pretext of demand of dowry, she was left with no other option except to live away from the matrimonial home.It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the maintenance case was filed in the year 2006 and the present state of inflation,has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.1,500/-each to the respondents 2 and 3 and since the quantum of maintenance is in consonance with the present state of inflation,no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 10.A perusal of Ex.R.2 marked in M.C.No.5 of 2006 would disclose that during the pendency of the criminal complaint on the file of the All Women Police Station, Manamadurai, the Social Welfare Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 22.03.2006 wherein it has been stated that the first respondent had no liking for the village type of life and used to go to her parental home and six months' prior to March 2006, she has stated to permanently stay at her parental home. 11.However, it is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that in the petition for divorce, the revision petitioner has made allegations that the first respondent is leading an adulterous life which necessitated him to file a petition for divorce. However, this Court need not go into the veracity of those allegations as admittedly, the petition for divorce filed by the revision petitioner is pending and the first respondent has also filed her counter. The fact as to whether the first respondent is leading an adulterous life or living away from the company of the revision petitioner without any justifiable cause or not, can be gone into by means of oral and documentary evidence. 12.Admittedly, as per M.C.No.5 of 2006, the first respondent prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- for herself and a sum of Rs.750/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. The lower Court has also taken into consideration the inflationary trend and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 first respondent and a sum of Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. 13.As per Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on proof of change in circumstances, alteration allowance can be ordered. Admittedly, the petition is filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and only after passing the final order in the said petition and by producing sufficient materials to show that the concerned person requires alteration, the enhancement of maintenance amount can be ordered. 14.Therefore, the enhancement in quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court over and above the quantum of maintenance prayed by the respondents in M.C.No.5 of 2006, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable. 15.Admittedly, the marital relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent is subsistence and it is not in dispute that the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them and their legitimacy is not under cloud. 16.This Court taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective learned Counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court requires modification. 17.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the order dated 15.02.2011 made in M.C.No.5 of 2006 is modified as follows: (i)The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.750/- p.m. to the first respondent by way of monthly maintenance from the date of petition and a sum of Rs.750/- p.m. each to the respondents 2 and 3 from the date of petition; (ii)The arrears of maintenance paid by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted and the revision petitioner shall pay the arrears of monthly maintenance as ordered by this Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall pay the said sum of Rs.750/- p.m., each to the respondents 2 and 3 on or before the 5th of every English Calender month; and (iii)In the event of default, the respondents are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. +1CC to M/s.S.Ravi, Advocate. SR.No.20592. +1CC to M/s.K.Vinayagam, Advocate. SR.No.20550. Copy To:The Section Officer, Criminal Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Rsb Crl.R.C.(MD)No.314 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/11.07.2011/3P/5C. 28.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/