S RAMILA Vs. E SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief history of the case are as follows:-

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner/wife has filed a revision petition in C.R.P.No.29 of 1994, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, against the order of Judicial Magistrate, seeking enhancement of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, which was the maximum quantum that can be awarded per head during the relevant period. In the said order, in para 10 and 11, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, categorically held that it has been proved that the respondent/husband is a man of substantial means owning several crores worth of movable and immovable properties and earning several lakhs of rupees as income per month and so the petitioner should be awarded the minimum quantum of maintenance that is admissible under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. and thereby set-aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem and enhanced the quantum of maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month with effect from 12.07.1990.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the respondent/husband had also filed a revision in C.R.P.No.219 of 1994, before the High Court, against the order of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem in M.C.No.8 of 1990. The High Court, after enquiry, held that the respondent is a man of substantial means doing silver business and owning several landed properties and confirmed the order of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem and dismissed the revision in C.R.P.No.219 of 1994, filed by the respondent/husband. Even after the orders in M.C.No.8 of 1990, by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem and even after the orders in C.R.P.No.219 of 1994 during 1997 also, the respondent did not pay the maintenance awarded under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner/wife filed C.M.P in M.C.No.8 of 1990, for recovering the arrears of maintenance and during the period 1999 only, the respondent/husband paid the arrears for the past several years amounting to Rs.40,000/- in one lump sum, after the arrest warrant issued by the Family Court. Thus, the petitioner/wife had incurred substantial litigation expenses with regard to these proceedings. During the year 1986, the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife and took it up to the High Court, Chennai, and the High Court dismissed the divorce appeal in C.M.S.A.No.37 of 1992 against C.M.A.No.49 of 1998 against H.M.O.P.No.26 of 1986 and finally no divorce was granted, but the respondent/husband refused to take back the petitioner.