K CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. V MYTHILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in Crl.RC.No.3 of 2013 in reversing the judgment dated 27.12.2012 in Maintenance Case No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.

(2.) The respondent has filed a petition in M.C.No.12 of 2007 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month each to her and her minor son and the same was partly allowed and the claim of the respondent herein was dismissed and the maintenance of the minor son by the petitioner herein until the age of majority i.e for period of 9 months and 19 days from 25.7.2007 to 15.5.2008 was allowed. The quantum was fixed at Rs.7,000/- and the petitioner was directed to make payment of the said sum multiplied into 9 months and 19 days within two months. Aggrieved against the refusal of grant of maintenance to respondent herein, the respondent/wife preferred criminal revision in CRL.RC.No.3 of 2013 before the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam and the same allowed by setting aside the order of trial Court negativing the claim of maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/-to the respondent/wife and the petitioner herein/husband was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the respondent/wife on or before 10th of every English Calendar Month. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner/ husband has filed the present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / husband would contend that the order of the first appellate court is erroneous and it is liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted that the trial court, after taking into consideration the fact that the respondent/wife has voluntarily left the matrimonial home, has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance. It is also submitted that though the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home even in the year 1997, she has not chosen to take any steps from 1997 onwards. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/wife is working in Public Sector undertaking company and is enjoying her life by availing all the benefits and concession provided by the Government. It is also submitted that the petitioner is aged about 67 years old and therefore, some leniency may be shown against the petitioner.