SURYA KUMAR Vs. M. L. VELLATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in M.C. No. 5 of 2016 vide his order, dated 22.04.2016.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein is husband of the respondent herein. The brief fact of the case is that the marriage between the revision petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 20.09.2015 at Arulmigu Sivakailasanathar Paramakalyani Ammal Temple, Alwarkurichi, Ambai Circle. After marriage, the revision petitioner/husband unnecessarily picked up quarrel with the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife harassed, tortured by the petitioner/husband by demanding huge dowry. The respondent/wife was driven out from the matrimonial home and living with her parents. In the year 2015, the revision petitioner/husband has filed a petition seeking divorce and the respondent/wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In the meantime, the respondent/wife has also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in M.C. No. 5 of 2015 seeking maintenance for a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, from the date of petition, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli. The above said maintenance petition was partly allowed, by directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/-per month, to the respondent/wife, from the date of petition and also directed the revision petitioner to pay arrear amount of maintenance, within a period of two months from the date of order. Aggrieved over the said order, dated 22.04.2016, the revision petitioner/husband is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court ought not have awarded monthly maintenance since admittedly the respondent/wife is working as a teacher and drawing an attractive of amount as salary and in such a situation, she cannot maintain any petition in terms of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the maintenance petition was filed by the respondent/wife for the purpose of harassing the petitioner. Hence, he prays to allow this revision case.