UNNAMALAI ALIAS VIMALA Vs. P SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reivision has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Sessions and Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2003, whereby the maintenance amount of Rs.200 p.m. has been ordered to be paid by the respondent in favour of Unnamalai alias Vimala, the petitioner.

(2.) ONE Unnamalai alias Vimala alleging that she is the wife of P.Subramanian, filed M.P.No.3 of 2000, before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.500.

(3.) THE fact remains that there is no dispute between the parties on the status of husband and wife. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent are living separately for the past so many years. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent Subramanian is having some other wife and adopted children with aged mother. THE further fact remains that the petitioner as well as the respondent has no documents to show that the respondent is having sufficient means to pay maintenance of Rs.500 and there is also no document to show that the petitioner Unnamalai is having means to such an extent to maintain herself. At the same time it is an admitted fact that the petitioner -Unnamalai is having some means and owning house and there is no document to show that the petitioner Unnamalai has already sold the lands with pumpset etc. It is also an admitted fact that the husband Subramanian who is the retired teacher is receiving pension of Rs.1,200 p.m.. Further it is seen that the petitioner and the respondent are living separately for the past so many years and after lapse of everything only the petitioner has chosen to file maintenance petition claiming Rs.500 p.m. from the husband. This conduct goes to show that the petitioner/wife was all having means to live separately without the aid of the husband, inasmuch as she happened to be the only daughter of her parents, who has immovable properties. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the Additional Sessions Judge, I am also of the view that the maintenance amount fixed as Rs.200 appears to be justified and there is no illegality or perversity in that order so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the same that too, when the Additional Sessions Judge has fixed that amount of Rs.200 after considering the evidence available for both sides and such circumstances to meet the expenses. Accordingly, this revision has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.