SAMPOORNAM Vs. ARJUNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are the wife and son of the respondent. They applied before the court of the Additional First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem, for granting maintenance to them, in M. C. No. 25 of 1971, and the court on 5-7-1971, ordered that the respondent should pay maintenance amounts of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- per month to the first and second petitioners respectively. The respondent has been paying these amounts as ordered. At the time of the passing of the said order, the respondent was working as a temporary helper in the Mettur Aluminium Co, on a daily wage of Rs. 5. 85. Not being satisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the petitioners filed M C. No. 462 of 1973, before the same court, praying for enhancement of the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75 and Rs. 45 to the first and second petitioners respectively on the ground that the respondent has been absorbed on a permanent basis as a workshop assistant on a monthly salary of Rs. 310. 60. The respondent resisted this claim for enhancement, stating that no new circumstances had arisen in his living condition or status and that he is still a temporary worker on a daily wage of Rs. 7. 80. Further, he raised a plea that the first petitioner was earning Rs. 75/per month as an agricultural cooly. The respondent had to maintain his family consisting of his parents and his younger brother. The petitioners, in proving their claim, examined the first petitioner as P. W. 1 who gave evidence that the respondent is earning Rs. 11. 50 per day. P. W. 2, the Chief Time Keeper in MALCO, would state that the respondent is still a temporary helper earning Rs. 6. 88 as daily wages, besides dearness allowance as per the cost of living index. The respondent examined R. W. 1, in order to prove that the first petitioner is getting an independent income of Rs. 2/- or Rs. 2. 50 as daily wages.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides, the the learned Magistrate, having regard to the increased income of the respondent, further ordered that he should pay Rupees 30/- and Rupees 15/- per month as maintenance to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively from the date of the said order. The petitioners, not having been fully satisfied with the quantum of the enhanced maintenance, have filed this revision petition for further enhancement.

(3.) THE liability of the respondent to maintain the petitioners, viz. , his wife and son (aged about 10) is not disputed. In respect of the enhanced maintenance awarded to them in the impugned order, no argument was advanced on the side of the respondent stating that it is excessive. But, on the other hand, this revision petition is resisted on the ground that this petition for further enhancement of the quantum of maintenance should be dismissed as incompetent on account of the sufficient independent income of the first petitioner which resources also should be taken into consideration in awarding maintenance to her.