NATARAJAN Vs. SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision case filed by Natarajan, Petitioner herein, against the order dated 9th November, 1981 in M.C. No. 55 of 1981 on the file of the court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, finding that the Respondent, revision Petitioner herein, had wilfully neglected to maintain his wife, that she is unable to maintain herself and as such the revision Petitioner herein has to pay a sum of Rs. 250 per month towards maintenance for her, from 16th May, 1981, the date of filing of the petition. The Petitioner Saraswathi, the Respondent herein, is the wife of the revision Petitioner herein.

(2.) IN this civil revision petition, let us adopt the array of parties as in the trial court. The Petitioner Saraswathi had filed before the Lower court a petition against her husband Natarajan under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for her. In the said petition, it is stated as follows: - The Respondent Natarajan is residing at No 21, Periyar Street, Chidambaram. On 5th February, 1973, at Kumbakonam, as per the Hindu rites and caste custom, their marriage was celebrated. During that time, the elder brother of the Petitioner gave 10 sovereigns of jewels, 930 grams of silver vessels along with eversilver and brass vessels as 'Sreedhana'. He spent Rs. 10,000 towards marriage expenses. During the time of the marriage, Sreenivasa Iyer father of the Respondent, asked on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner should be decked with diamond ear -rings. During that time, the elder brother of the Petitioner one Venkataramani, gave Rs. 500 as there was no means, and it was assured that a sum of Rs. 3,000 would be given subsequently.

(3.) ON 8th March, 1979, another brother of the Petitioner, Narayanan and Aiyasami Iyer, the husband of her sister residing at Sirkali came to see the Petitioner in her house. The Respondent and the members of his family abused them and drove them out of the house. Thereafter, the Petitioner was kept inside the house and the outer door was bolted and she was beaten indiscriminately without any mercy, Thereafter, the Petitioner was forcibly pushed out from inside the house. Thereafter, the said Narayanan and Aiyasami Iyer took the Petitioner who was injured, to the Chidambaram Town Police Station. The Petitioner gave a complaint in that Police Station. The Petitioner was sent by the Police to the Government Hospital at Chidambaram for treatment. Thereafter, the police called the Respondent, his father Sreenivasa Iyer and his brothers to the Police Station and enquired them. The Respondent, his father and his brothers gave in writing voluntarily to the Sub -Inspector of Police undertaking not to ill -treat the Petitioner thereafter and also further assured that they would treat the Petitioner in a proper manner and lead the family life peacefully. They also took the Petitioner along with them. But the Respondent and his parents as well as his brothers continued to ill -treat the Petitioner as before. After some days, the Petitioner was driven out of the house of the Respondent by the Respondent as well as by his relatives. At that time, the jewels worn by the Petitioner as well as the silver, eversilver and brass vessels were retained by them. From that time onwards, the Petitioner has been living at Vaitheeswaran Koil in the house of her sister. The Petitioner has no income of her own. The brothers as well as the husband of the Petitioner's sister are finding it difficult even to maintain their families and therefore, there is no means for them to maintain the Petitioner. The Respondent is working as a Fitter in the Engineering College attached to the Annamalai University. He gets a monthly salary of Rs. 350. Apart from the same, the Respondent is owning five acres of cultivable land and also a thope consisting of 400 coconut trees. The Respondent is also possessing a cash of Rs. 10,000. Therefore, the Respondent has to pay a sum of Rs. 400 per mensem towards maintenance for the Petitioner. An order to the above effect was prayed for by the Petitioner in her petition.