1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :11.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.8 of 2011 Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner Vs. Ravichandran ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.17 of 2010 by the Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai dated 15.09.2010 challenging the order in M.C.No.9 of 2008 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, Pudukottai, dated 02.02.2010. For Petitioner : M/s. M.Ramu For Respondent : M/s. S.Vijayakumar O R D E R Wife is the revision petitioner and challenge is made to the reduction of quantum of maintenance awarded by the Fast Track Court, Pudukottai in Crl.R.C.No.17 of 2010 vide order dated 15.09.2010, preferred this revision. 2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 22.01.1996 as per the wishes of the elders and as per Hindu Rites. The respondent is none other than the maternal uncle of the revision petitioner. Out of wedlock, two male children were born and they died within three days from the date of delivery. The revision petitioner further averred that in the year 2001, the respondent was elected as the Panchayat President of Themmavur Village and subsequently, developed illicit intimacy with several women. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on account of the illicit intimacy, he purposely avoid the company of the petitioner and she was ill-treated by him and also she was driven out of the matrimonial home. 3. The revision petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.234 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai and the same is pending adjudication. 4. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the respondent is in possession of nanja and punja lands worth more than Rs.30 lakhs, two lorries and dipper and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month and the revision petitioner is in requirement of a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for food, cloth and medical expenses and a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month for maintenance and in this regard, she filed M.C.No.9 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur. 5. The said petition was opposed by the respondent herein by filing a counter stating that he is not having any illicit intimacy with any women and in fact he was abused by the revision petitioner and she often used to leave the matrimonial home without informing him or the other family members. The revision petitioner also filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment against the respondent and his family members in Crime No.7 of 2007 on the file of All Women Police Station, Pudukottai and the present petition is filed only to harass him and cause mental agony. 6. During the course of enquiry in M.C.No.9 of 2008, on the side of the revision petitioner herein, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked and on the side of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. The trial Court on taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards monthly maintenance and also a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the application, vide order dated 02.02.2010. The respondent herein even aggrieved by the same, preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.17 of 2010. 7. The revisional Court taking into consideration of the fact that the revision petitioner is residing in one of the properties of the respondent and other circumstances, found that the revision petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,000/- and thereby reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court and challenge the vires of the same, the present revision petition is filed. 8. This Court heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the typed set and orders. 9. The trial Court has recorded the finding that the revision petitioner herein is living in a portion of a house belonging to the respondent, but found that there is no material that the revision petitioner herein is earning any income out of the said property, except the oral testimony of the respondent herein, who has been examined as R.W.1. The trial Court has also discussed Exs.P8 and P9, being the pattas, which stand in the name of the respondent and as per the said documents, land ad-measuring at least to an extent of 20 acres stands in his name and 5 acres of land stands in his father's name under Ex.P10. The trial Court also found that as per Exs.P6 and P7, the respondent is owning Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN 55 7171 and a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN 55 T 4183 and also earning income out of the said business and hence found that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,500/-. 10. The revisional Court has reduced the quantum from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.1,000/-, by taking into consideration of the fact that the revision petitioner is residing in one of the house owned by the respondent. But the fact remains that she is not having any independent source of income and there is no evidence let in to prove that she was earning income out of the said property. This Court taking into consideration of the fact that as per Exs.P8, P9 and P10, the respondent herein owns lands and also earning income out of running a Leyland lorry and running Tata Sumo https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 vehicle as evidenced by Exs.P6 and P7, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the revisional Court Rs.1,000/- is to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,000/- and the same would meet the ends of justice. 11. In the result, Criminal Revision is allowed and the order dated 15.09.2010 passed in Crl.R.C.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Pudukottai is set aside and the revision petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month payable from the date of the petition in M.C.No.9 of 2008. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. 2. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, Pudukottai. +1 CC TO MR. M. RAMU, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 5915 +1 CC TO MR. S. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 6336 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.8 of 2010 11.03.2011 akv PAM 30.03.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/