VARADAPPA NAIDU Vs. THAYARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife Thayarammal, the respondent filed M.C.No. 7 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Cheyyar under Section 125, Cr1. P .C. claiming maintenance against her husband Varadappa Naidu, the petitioner and learned Magistrate had been pleased to award a maintenance of Rs. 300/- per mensem. The petitioner agitated the matter further and filed Cr1. RP. No. 37/87 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, North area at Vellore, besides he also filed Cr1. M.P. No. 1197/87 for reception of additional documents. Learned Sessions Judge, confirming the award of maintenance, dismissed both the proceedings. The aggrieved petitioner again preferred Cr1. M.P. No. 1293/88 before this court to set aside the order in Cr1. RP. No. 37187. This court, upholding the claim of the respondent-wife for her entitlement to maintenance at the hands of her husband, the petitioner, besides directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000/- however remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on the question of quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Trial Court, after affording adequate opportunity to both sides, went into the question and awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs. 100/- per mensem. Ag-, grieved by that order, the petitioner again preferred Cr1. RC. No. 5189 before the Court of Session, Vellore and learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the matter came up for consideration, dismissed the same, confirming the order of the Trial Court, giving rise to the present action.

(2.) The order of the Trial Court, on consideration of fresh materials and change of circumstances, in awarding the maintenance in a sum of Rs. 100/- per mensem and laterly confirmed by the revisional court, can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be perverse calling for interference, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the trial as well as revisional court appreciated the materials, in the best of fashion possible and arrived at justifiable conclusion regarding the quantum of maintenance to be paid by the husband petitioner. This court with the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr1. P.C. cannot be expected in either fe-assess or to review the materials available on record and come to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the court below, unless there are compelling circumstances, choking the conscience of the court, which lam unable to find in the case on hand.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prepared to deposit before this court aiump-sum grant towards maintenance as he finds it difficult to pay monthly maintenance and therefore it is that the petition may be admitted and notice may be issued to the respondent for consideration of such a question. Learned Counsel, while making such a submission, is oblivious of the legal position that an order for maintenance in a form other than monthly cash payment is not a valid order under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and if any authority is needed for this proposition, the decision in Annapurna Devi v. Sarrughna Mahakud1 is an answer for the same and in this view of the matter, the revision deserves to be dismissed even at the admission stage and the same is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.