MOHANA Vs. ANANDAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of reduction of the award of maintenance by the Sessions Court, is challenged in this Revision.

(2.) The 1st petitioner/wife, on her behalf and on behalf of the two minor children filed an application for maintenance, claiming the same from her husband, the respondent herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram after conducting enquiry in M.C.No.18 of 1990, awarded maintenance, directing the respondent/husband to, pay Rs.300/- p.m., to the 1st petitioner/ wife and Rs.250/- each to the minor children/petitioners 2 and 3 herein. Aggrieved over this, the respondent/husband, filed a Revision Crl.R.C. No.10 of 1992, on the file of Sessions Judge, Chengalpet. On hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, reduced the maintenance amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.250/- to the wife and from Rs.250/- to Rs.125/- to the minor children, petitioners 2 and 3, totalling Rs.500/- per month.

(3.) Mr. P. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the verdict given by the learned Sessions Judge holding that all the petitioners, the wife and two minor children would be put together entitled to a total sum of Rs.500/- p.m. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, that a reading of Sec.125 Cr.P.C. would disclose that every claimant is entitled to a maximum maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. and as such the inference of the Sessions Judge, that all the claimants are put together entitled to the said maximum sum of Rs.500/- is wrong. I could see, that there is some force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 125 Cr.P.C., reads thus:-