CHANDRASEKAR Vs. TMT. ESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner/Respondent has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.02.2014 in M.C. No. 2 of 2012 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.

(2.) The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, while passing the impugned order, on 17.02.2014 in M.C. No. 2 of 2012, at paragraph No. 13, had inter alia observed that the "...Respondent (Husband) has not proved the complaint of adultery between the petitioner/wife and one Mr. Suresh before this Court" and hence, negatived the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Husband in this regard. Further, the trial Court, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - per month to the respondent/Husband as maintenance to be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Husband from the date of filing of M.C. No. 2 of 2012 viz., 04.01.2012 onwards until further orders. Moreover, the Revision Petitioner/Husband was directed to pay the said maintenance amount on or before 5th every English Calender month and was also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount within one month from the date of the order.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 in M.C. No. 2 of 2012, passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, the Revision Petitioner/Husband has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court (as an aggrieved person), primarily contending that the trial Court had failed to take into account of a very vital fact that the Respondent/wife had not established her case in the manner known to Law.