P ARUMUGAM Vs. A RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed an application in M.C. No. 54 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned First Additional Family Judge, Chennai, claiming maintenance. Pending the said application, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have also filed a petition in M.P. No. 560 of 2009 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Family Court Judge had allowed the said petition directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly interim maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- to each of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, willfully deserted the petitioner 25 years ago and she had eloped with one person and she was living with him. After so many years, the first respondent had chosen to file a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the second respondent is aged about 25 years and as such, he is a major and therefore, he is not entitled for any maintenance.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that against the order of interim maintenance, no revision lies, since the order is only an interlocutory order. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the first respondent herein is aged about 60 years and in the year 1983, she was forced by the petitioner herein to leave the matrimonial home along with her children. Therefore, she had gone to her parent's place at Kolar Gold Field with her children. It is also submitted that there is no bar for claiming maintenance even after 25 years and as such, the first respondent is entitled for claiming interim maintenance.