(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode, in Criminal Revision Case No.13 of 2007, dated 28.09.2007, confirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, in M.C.No.19 of 2005, dated 23.01.2007.
(2.) The respondent herein has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.19 of 2005 against the petitioner herein before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, seeking maintenance. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the maintenance petition filed by the respondent/wife and directed the petitioner herein/husband to pay a sum of Rs.750/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein has filed a Criminal Revision Case No.13 of 2007 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode. The learned I Additional District Judge, after examining the documents and also analyzing the evidence, dismissed the Criminal Revision Case and confirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, in M.C.No.19 of 2005, dated 23.01.2007. As against the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Original Petition before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the judgment passed by the Courts below awarding a sum of Rs.750/- per month as maintenance to the respondent is against law and further, the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner does not have any means to pay maintenance and he is living at the mercy of his son, whereas the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the present Criminal Original Petition cannot be said to be a second revision. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, 1997 AIR(SC) 987 The learned counsel also contended that the Courts below have passed the orders without proper application of mind and therefore, the said orders have to be set aside.