D. MAHENDRAN Vs. SUJATHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order made in M.C. No. 69 of 2011 dated 28.11.2014, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem, directing the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance to the wife/1st respondent and Rs. 3,500/- to the minor daughter/2nd respondent. The trial Court has further directed past maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the respondents, from the date of filing of the Maintenance Case in 2011, till the date of disposal of the maintenance case i.e., on 28.11.2014. Material on record discloses that the marriage between the parties was solmenized on 27.08.2007, and they were blessed with a female child. Case of the respondent/wife is that in order to set up an automobile shop, petitioner demanded money and ill-treated her. When she was seven months pregnant, the petitioner assaulted her, and due to which, she suffered nervous disorder. On account of cruelty and demand of dowry, a criminal case under Sections 498(A), 506 (ii) r/w. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered against the petitioner/husband and the in-laws.

(2.) Material on record discloses that as regards the claim of maintenance, notices have been exchanged. Wife has further submitted that at the time of filing the petition for maintenance, petitioner, was working in an automobile company and earned Rs. 8,000/- per month. That apart, his family has sufficient sources of income. Rent from three houses is also collected. Justifying the inability to live in the matrimonial home, on account of cruelty and dowry demand, and explaining her plight, M.C. No. 69 of 2011 has been filed, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the wife and minor daughter.

(3.) Before the Court below, the petitioner has refuted the allegations of dowry demand made against him. According to him, there was no difference of opinion between the spouses. He has denied physical assault. He has expressed his desire to live with the wife. He has further submitted that wife is employed in a private company. She has willfully neglected and refused to live with him. With the above defence, he has prayed for dismissal of M.C. No. 69 of 2011.