M. MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH Vs. M. BALGEES BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE before admission was given and the respondents have entered appearance through counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Senthur Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Seemaraj, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The copy of the impugned order of the Court below and the copies of the connected papers produced by the parties in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the revision petitioner married the first respondent and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a child who is none other than the second respondent. Due to difference of opinion and mutual distrust, the couple got separated and the attempts made by the Jamathars proved to be a failure as the wife was demanding to set up a separate residence for the petitioner, the first respondent and their child alleging some kind of harassment by the mother of the petitioner herein. However, the petitioner was not prepared to concede her demand. Accordingly, the gap widened and it resulted in the pronouncement of triple talaq by the petitioner herein. After the marital tie was snapped by the pronouncement of triple talaq, the petitioner did not make any provision for the maintenance of his erstwhile wife namely, the first respondent and his child namely, the second respondent.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the Family Court, after hearing, opining that the respondents herein did not have sufficient means to maintain themselves whereas the petitioner herein failed to maintain the respondents herein even though he was possessed of means to maintain them passed the impugned order on 06.12.2013 directing him to pay maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 2,500/ - per month for the maintenance of the first respondent and Rs. 1,500/ - per month for the maintenance of the child namely, the second respondent.