IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:04.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 Sekar ... Petitioner vs. 1. Kalaiselvi 2. Minor Nivedha 3. Minor Priyadarshini ... Respondents (Minors 2 and 3 rep. By their mother 1st respondent) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Sirkali in M.C.No.7 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar O R D E R Animadverting upon the order dated 30.11.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, in M.C.No.7 of 2006, this revision is focussed. 2. Succinctly and pithily, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (a) The respondents herein filed M.C.No.7 of 2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as against the revision petitioner seeking maintenance. (b) Inasmuch as the revision petitioner contested the matter, enquiry was conducted. During enquiry, the first respondent herein examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 Nithyanandam and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The revision petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. (c) Ultimately the Magistrate awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.500/- per month in favour of each of the respondents payable by the revision petitioner. 3.Being disconcerted and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Magistrate, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The lower Court failed to take into account the fact that the revision petitioner is not getting any salary. He is not at all working as a lecturer, but he is accommodated by the Parents Teachers Association. The finding of the lower Court that the petitioner is also working as a contract worker and getting a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month is erroneous. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of mind in awarding maintenance in favour of the respondents herein by the lower Court. 5. A plain reading of the order of the lower Court as well as the perusal of the records would reveal that the relationship among the parties is an admitted one. P.W.1 (R1) herein would depose that the husband indulged in wife battering and he went to the extent of hitting her with a club and she sustained damage of her eyes. Whereas, the husband would plead his innocence and he would state that he had not indulged in wife battering, but it was she who left the matrimonial home. In fact, he would even go to the extent of stating that it was the wife who attacked the husband. Absolutely the lower Court after considering the pro et contra, held that there was nothing to indicate and display that the wife disentitled herself from claiming maintenance. 6. It is a trite proposition of law that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only summary proceedings are contemplated and the larger issues between the parties cannot be adjudged and only before the matrimonial Court they should get it adjudged. Here the lower Court found that unjustifiably the husband failed to maintain his wife/R1 and also his children, R2 and R3. 7. Regarding factual finding is concerned, no interference is warranted. In fact, the revision is focussed on the main ground that the revision petitioner is having no financial ability to maintain his wife and two children. I recollect the common or garden principle of law that a male is expected to toil and moil, and strain every nerve to earn and maintain his wife and children. In such a case, I could see no perversity or non-application of law on the part of the lower Court in ordering maintenance. To say the least, the Magistrate awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.500/- per month in favour of each of the respondents. Accordingly, I could see no perversity or non application of law in awarding maintenance by the lower Court. In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali. 2. -Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. +1 CC to Mr.A.Muthukumar Advocate Sr.35588 Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2007 KG (CO) SRA 01/09/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/