NATARAJAN Vs. SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision case filed by Natarajan, petitioner herein, against the order dated 9 -11 -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 16 -5 -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 Criminal 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 Criminal Procedure Code 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 5 -2 -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 ever -silver and brass vessels as 'Sreedhanaà ¯ ¿ 1/2. 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 earrings. 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.) After the marriage was celebrated, the petitioner and the respondent were residing in the house of the respondent at Chidambaram along with the respondent's father, mother and brothers. Raji, a female child aged about 6 years then, and Hariharan, a male child aged about 4 years then, were born to the petitioner and the respondent. After the marriage was celebrated, as desired by the father of the respondent, Venkataramani, the eldest brother of the petitioner could not give the balance amount for purchasing the diamond ear -rings. So, the respondent and his parents as well as his three brothers began to ridicule and illtreat the petitioner. They also compelled the petitioner now and then to ask for money from her eldest brother Venkataramani. Thereafter, as agreed, venkataramani, the eldest brother of the petitioner, gave Rs.3,000 to the father of the respondent towards the balance of the amount relating to the diamond earrings. Still the respondent and the members of his family continued to ill -treat the petitioner. Very often the respondent used to take the petitioner to the house of his sister at Vaitheeswaran Koil and leave her there. Even for three or four months, he never used to take her back. Thus the respondent, with the connivance of his parents and brothers, began to neglect the petitioner without any basis. On number of occasions, when the petitioner was in the house of the respondent, she was not even given proper food or clothes. Thus, she was neglected to be maintained by him.