V PONNUSWAMY Vs. TMT JAYA MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee dated 29.3.1995 made in M.C.No.1 of 1992, the petitioner-husband has preferred the above revision. The respondents herein filed M.C.No.1 of 1992 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= per month against the petitioner herein under sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee. According to the respondents herein-the petitioners therein, the petitioner and the first respondent herein got married on 1.7.1974 at Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District and after the marriage, they were living at No.114, Butt Roas, St.Thomas Mount, Madras. Two children viz., respondents 2 and 3 herein were born to them. In the petition before the court below, the first respondent-wife has alleged that due to family circumstance and in order to lead a wayward life, her husband deserted them. She has further stated that they are unable to maintain themselves. On the other hand, her husband is employed in Hindustan Teleprinters Limited and earning Rs.4000/= per month apart from having a house property at St.Thomas Mount. The said petition was resisted by the husband by filing counter statement. He has stated that it was the wife-first respondent herein who left his company. He also alleged that she is leading an adulterous life and legally she is not entitled to any maintenance.

(2.) Before the court below, two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioners therein and no document was marked. On the other hand, on the side of the husband, himself was examined as RW1 and he examined four witnesses as R.W.s 2 to 5 and marked Exs.R1 to R17 in support of his defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after holding that there was valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent herein and two children (respondents 2 and 3 herein) were born to them, the wife is justified in living separately and unable to maintain herself, passed an order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/= per month in favour of the wife and the daughter and Rs.400/= per month in favour of the son. Questioning the said order in so far as it relates to payment of maintenance in favour of the first respondent-wife, the petitioner has preferred the above revision.

(3.) Though notice was served on all the respondents, they have not chosen to engage a counsel to contest the matter.