NATARAJAN Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been filed against the order of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: -

(3.) MR . Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the order of maintenance cannot be sustained on two grounds. Firstly, when the respondent was not willing to live with her husband as stated by her in the Panchayat, she is not entitled for maintenance as found in Second Proviso to Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. Secondly, as per the customs prevailing in the community, the respondent has received a total sum of Rs. 60,000/ - towards maintenance for herself and her minor son at the time of divorce as per Ex. B -1, a panchayat muchalika executed by both the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, she would not be entitled for further maintenance.