(1.) ONE Padma alias Rajalakshmi for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter Tamizvani, filed a petition under Sec.125, Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry claiming maintenance against her husband Kalaimani. Learned Magistrate, on perusal of the materials placed before him, awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.400 to the wife and Rs.200 to the minor daughter per mensem on and from the date of the petition, namely, 4.2.19S7 till such time as is permissible under law, giving rise to the present revision.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner husband is not at all disputing the liability of the husband to pay maintenance to his wife. LEARNED counsel would mount a virtual attack on the sustainability of the award of maintenance of two grounds:
(3.) AS regards the other submission revolving on the quantum of maintenance, the earning capacity of the husband has to be given due consideration. The evidence on record, in the shape of P.W.2, the pay Master Coupled with Ex.P5 series, pay certificates would amply demonstrate that his gross salary was Rs.1,600 in the year 1988-89 and he was having a carry-home salary of Rs.600 per mensem. This income is in addition to the rental income he is staled to have been in receipt of from the properly he possessed. Learned Magistrate while determining this quantum of maintenance had given a clear finding that the husband with the oblique motive of depriving his wife and a minor daughter of their legitimate amount of maintenance to be paid, in the event of her success in the maintenance proceedings she has initialed against him, made certain financial commitments and allowed so much of deductions from his salary. In such state of affairs, nobody is to be blamed except himself. Further the salary that he was drawing in the year 1988-89 would have almost been doubled due to pay-hike as a result of revision of pay by the sands of passage of time now. In this view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife and her daughter totalling in a sum of Rs.600 per mensem cannot be stated to be grossly disproportionate to the earning capacity of the petitioner-husband. This submission also bristles next to nothing.