S PRAVITHA PRASANNA Vs. M RAMASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in M.C No. 539 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai. THE first petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the respondent herein. THE first petitioner herein filed an application for claiming maintenance. THE learned Judge passed an order directing the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the first petitioner and Rs. 1500/- to each of the second and third petitioner. Not satisfied with the order of the learned Judge, the petitioners had preferred this criminal revision petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally a suit was filed in O.S. No. 82 of 2000, before the same Court claiming maintenance for the period 11.10.1999 to 10.10.2000 and a sum of Rs. 5000/- was awarded as maintenance. Another suit was filed inO.S.No. 145 of 2004 claiming maintenance for the period 11.10.2000 to 10.9.2004. Pending this suit, petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed in M.C. No. 539 of 2004 on 15.9.2004 claiming maintenance from the date of the petition. THE learned Judge has granted maintenance amount of Rs.3500/- both in O.S. No. 145 of 2004 and in M.C. No. 539 of 2004, though in the year 2003, while passing order in O.S. No. 82 of 2000, a maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- was granted. At present, only a lesser amount has been ordered by the Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the reason for awarding lesser amount of maintenance is that the petitioner being employed in I.T. Job was drawing more than Rs. 20,000/- per month. Only in the said circumstances, a lesser amount was fixed as maintenance to the first petitioner. THE learned counsel also pointed out that the learned Judge has relied on the evidence recorded in the main suit O.S.No. 145 of 2004 filed by the respondent.