R P KANDASWAMY Vs. SIVAGAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Kandasamy is the husband of respondent Sivakami. Sivakami preferred M.C. 7 of 1988 under Section 125 Crl. P.C. before Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Erode, claiming monthly maintenance from the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent, that she had married the petitioner according to Hindu custom on 5.3.1969. Both of them lived happily as husband and wife for about one year at Rakiagoundan Pudur. Petitioner is a travelling Ticket Examiner. After about a year respondent found out that the petitioner had several evil habits. She bore with patience, but she had to lose her jewellery due to the misconduct of her husband. Petty quarrels arose between them. Petitioner inflicted cruelty on her. She was deserted from the matrimonial home. Petitioner also commenced living with Saraswathy alias Kuppai Ammal as husband and wife, after entering into a form of marriage. She was residing with her mother and was unable to maintain herself. Practically her life was one of starvation. In that background she filed O.S. No. 779 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode, pleading for maintenance from her husband. Though she had claimed Rs. 175/- per month, the Civil Court directed the petitioner to n pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/-. The Civil Court pronounced orders on 31st December, 1983. Respondent stated before the enquiring c Magistrate, that except payment of Rs. 2,100/- towards the maintenance decree, petitioner had not paid any other sum towards maintenance inspite of the decree, till she preferred the impugned maintenance application. She further stated that the petitioner was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/-. Due to escalation of cost of living, she was unable to maintain herself and hence she pleaded for a monthly award of Rs. 500/- as maintenance.

(2.) Petitioner countered the claim of the respondent and stated that he did not inflict cruelty on his wife. He refuted having married Saraswathi alias Kuppai Ammal, or even residing with her as husband and wife. He stated, that at the time of marriage, he had provided for his wife six sovereigns of jewellery, though her parents gave her a gift often-sovereigns of gold jewellery. Since the respondent had a better status, she was unable to pull on with him which led to hatred between themselves. Respondent on her own accord went away to her parental house. While doing so without informing him, she took away the entire jewellery. In spite of his efforts of bring back his wife to his family-fold, through panchayatdars, nothing fruitful happened. Respondent pleaded for divorce and later allowed it to be dismissed. Respondent has sufficient funds and is earning by lending out her monies on interest. He affirmed obtaining of a maintenance decree from the civil Court. He further alleged that the respondent was living with one Sengottain. In short his case was that the impugned maintenance proceedings had been initiated purely with a view to harass him.

(3.) The Inquiring Magistrate, before whom the petitioner and the respondent examined themselves apart from marking some exhibits, on appreciation of the evidence placed before him, found that the respondent was entitled to be maintained by the petitioner. In that view he directed the petitioner to pay every month Rs. 300/- to his wife from the date of petition.