V.JEEVARATHINAM Vs. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/husband in M.C.No.16 of 2011 is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents herein, who are the wife, minor daughter and minor son had filed M.C.No.16 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/ - each for them. The said case, after hot contest, was ordered on 07.12.2014 by directing the petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/ - to the first respondent, Rs.6,500/ - each per month to his daughter and son, aggregating a sum of Rs.16,000/ - as maintenance directly or through money order or through demand draft before the 05th day of every English Calender Month, without default from the date of the petition. The arrears of maintenance excluding the maintenance already paid by the respondent should be paid within 3 months from the date of the order.

(3.) MR .K.N.Thambi, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submitted that though the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C in M.C.No.16 of 2011 was filed by the respondents herein, the trial Court has committed a grave error in directing the revision petitioner herein/respondent therein to enter into the witness box and give his evidence as R.W.1 and therefore, he has been put to grave prejudice, as he was not in a position to know the oral evidence of P.W.1/first petitioner in M.C.No.16 of 2011, as he has gone into the box subsequent to her.