A M SADIQ BASHA Vs. SHAMSAD BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of criminal Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned First additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore made in Crl. R. P. No. 55 of 1987 and crl. R. P. No. 82 of 1987, dated 15. 3. 1988 directing the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 175 per month to the first respondent herein from 19. 11. 1984 by allowing the Crl. R. P. No. 82 of 1987and dismissing the Crl. R. P. No. 55 of 1987, preferred by the petitioner herein, canvassing the propriety and legality of the maintenance order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, coimbatore made in M. C. No. 46 of 1984 dated 11. 3. 1987 directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 75 each to the respondents 2 to 4 herein per month, as maintenance as provided under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of the petition itself.

(2.) THE case of the respondents herein projected in m. C. No. 46 of 1984 is briefly stated as follows: Both the petitioner herein and the first respondent are Muslims by religion governed by Mohammedan Law, who married in accordance with the religion and caste customs in the year 1975 in a marriage hall situated at Siriyan Church, Coimbatore town, and since then onwards, both had been living together as husband and wife, happily for a period of about five years and that since the father of the revision petitioner, died at Karamadai, just to help his mother, both the revision petitioner and the first respondent shifted their residence to Karamadai and were living in the house of the revision petitioner for a period of 8 months and then subsequently changed their abode to a house at Anna Nagar. Respondents 2 to 4 were the children born to them out of the wedlock and that on the date of filing of the petition before the trial court, namely, on 19. 11. 1984, the respondents 2 to 4 were studying in the school, even during the said life, it was alleged that the petitioner herein, was addicted to drinking alcohol and gambling and that in view of the said vices, he used to ill treat the first respondent, without any reason whatsoever and sometimes used to beat her and that during the said sojourn, gold jewellery to the weighment of about 25 sovereigns presented to her at the time of marriage, were taken away by the petitioner herein, and squandered and that apart, the three gold rings weighing about half sovereigns each along with a gold chain worth Rs. 550and a H. M. T. watch presented by the parents of the first respondent to the revision petitioner were also sqaun-dered but added with ill treatment and cruelly perpetrated on her. While that being so on 10. 10. 1984, the petitioner herein, left the conjugal house of the first respondent and their children respondents 2 to 4 and on 14. 10. 1984, she was shocked to hear that the revision petitioner had contracted a second marriage with one Saidhani Begum and with whom he was living at Udumalpet and from then onwards, he had not visited the house of the respondents herein but however deserted and neglected them, by not paying a single paisa even for their maintenance. Finding it difficult to lead life at karamadai, the respondents sought asylum in the parents house of the first respondent at Coimbatore . Since the petitioner herein was running a business by name Sathik Frame Works and getting an income of Rs. 1,000 per month and then getting a daily income of Rs. 10 as net profit from running a grocery shop at Karamadai, and besides, he has a house, consisting of four tenements, leased out to tenants at Kannarpalaiyam village and getting a monthly rental of Rs. 80 per tenament and also a salary of Rs. 400 per month being derived by him from one Venkatachalapathy Chit Funds, it was claimed that the revision petitioner has got ample means to provide maintenance and since the respondents had no means to maintain themselves, they pleaded for the direction of maintenance amount as prayed for, in the petition.

(3.) IN the light of the above rival contentions made on behalf of the respective parties herein, the only point, that arises for consideration is whether the order of the lower appellate court in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to all the respondents herein is erroneous in law and improper, liable to be set aside, if not, is the quantum of maintenance directed by the lower appellate court proper and correct"