IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:16.6.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.779 of 2006 Arumugam ... Petitioner/Respondent vs. 1.Bama 2.Minor Gokul Raja minor rep.by his mother/next friend Bama ... Respondents/Petitioners Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in M.C.No.12 of 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan O R D E R Animadverting upon the the order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in M.C.No.12 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. The nitty-gritty of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case, would run thus: The respondents being the wife and minor child of the revision petitioner filed the M.C.No.12 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Whereupon, the trial Court, after conducting enquiry and hearing both sides, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of each of them. Being dis-satisfied with and aggrieved by the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:- The learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration that the revision petitioner was not at all at fault in maintaining the respondents, and it is his wife, who refused to resume cohabitation and live along with him in the matrimonial home. 3. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court, after considering the evidence, awarded maintenance or simply passed such order by non-application of mind on the facts and figures placed before hit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the first respondent herein-the wife of the petitioner being the President of Erumaipatti Panchayat, having power as well financial resources, neglected to have cohabitation with the revision petitioner and as such she has not made out a case before the Magistrate that the husband neglected to main her and the child; in the counter itself, the revision petitioner spelt out that he was ready and willing to take back his wife and child and hence, he cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay monthly maintenance. He would further contend that the maintenance awarded is also excessive. 5. This is a singularly singular case, in which, the husband even by way of defence could not utter out even a single sentence as against his wife that she was having some abominable or rebarbative attitude on her part in staying away from him and this Court notes it significantly. In paragraph 7 of the counter, what are all the husband by way of defence would put forth against his wife was that she of her own accord had chosen to stay away from the husband. This, in my opinion seems to be a far fetched defence. The wife has come forward with the clear case that the husband, namely, the revision petitioner demanded 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and also a cash of Rs.50,000/- and as there was no positive response from the bribe's side, he refused to take back the wife with the child, after the wife delivered the male child while she was staying with her father. Admittedly, the wife lodged a complaint with the police as against her husband imputing cruelty as against him, wherefore, it is quite obvious that the Magistrate was justified in inferring and understanding that it was the husband, who refused or failed to take back the wife and child and accordingly, au fait with law and au courant with facts, the learned Magistrate correctly gave the finding that both of them did deserve maintenance to be obtained from the revision petitioner herein, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. So far the child is concerned, it is beyond doubt that the revision petitioner being the father should necessarily provide maintenance. In respect of the wife is concerned, even though from the evidence it could be understood that she was getting a sum of Rs.500/- per month as income, yet a lady, in this present day cost of living, cannot keep the body and soul together; keep the wolf away from the door and meet her creature comforts with that Rs.500/-. At least she would be requiring a sum of Rs.50/- per day to maintain herself. Accordingly, if it is worked out, it would come to Rs.1,500/- per month and after deducting Rs.500/-, what remains is Rs.1000/-, which the lower Court correctly and appropriately, appositely and convincingly awarded in favour of the wife, in addition to awarding Rs.1000/- in favour of the child. As such, inconcinnity with the object of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate awarded such maintenance, warranting no interference. Accordingly, I could see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed, as there is no merit in the revision. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Msk To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 1 cc To Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.23387 Crl.R.C.No.779 of 2006 GV(CO) SRA(3/7/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/