SAIDU MOHAMMED Vs. SUBAIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A maintenance order passed by the Family court, Palakkad under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in M.C No. 334/2006 is under challenge in this revision. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the direction to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 750/ - per month, and to the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. The revision petitioner married the first respondent on 20.03.2003, but the matrimony did not last long. In March 2005, the first respondent left the matrimonial home with the child, and since then she has been residing separately from the revision petitioner. Alleging cruelty, neglect and desertion the respondents brought claim before the family court for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim for maintenance on the contention that his wife has no reason to live separately and claim maintenance, and that she has her own income from property and otherwise. He also denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) ON hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the maintenance order passed by the trail court. Of course, it is true that the matrimony did not last long. The first respondent has her own explanation and excuse for the short lived matrimony. Her case is that she had been mentally and physically ill treated by the husband, and she had to leave the matrimonial home with the child in March 2005. She has given evidence substantiating this allegation. The revision petitioner has no explanation why he did not make earnest efforts to bring back his wife. Separation since March 2005 is practically admitted by the revision petitioner. It has come out in evidence that the parties had once reunited on the intervention of some mediators, but they again fell apart. It is not known why earnest efforts were not made by the revision petitioner to bring his wife back with the child after the second separation. He has no case of he had made payment of anything to his wife and child since the separation. Thus a clear case of neglect stands proved in this case.