R RAJASEKARAN Vs. SEETHALAKHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioner/husband Rajasekaran, against the order dated 24-6-1993, passed in M.C. No. 11 of 1990, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindiyanam, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and Rs. 400/- p.m. to the wife/1st respondent herein and to the minorscjn/2nd respondent herein respectively, from the date of petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the trial Court.

(2.) The short facts are necessary to decide the issue raised in this revision.On 30--4-1984, the 1st respondent Seethalakhmi was given in marriage to the petitioner Rajasekaran. The petitioner was given to various streedana articles like jewels etc. worth about Rs. 2 lakhs, at the time of marriage. After marriage they lived together at Salem. On 11-3-1988, the 2nd respondent Nivethan was born at Salem. After the birth of 2nd respondent, both the respondents were taken to the house of the father of'1st respondent. The petitioner came to his father-in-law's house to attend the naming ceremony of 2nd respondent and stayed there for two days. Thereafter, he left assuring that he would come back soon to take 1st and 2nd respondentsto his house, but later, he never turned up. Several letters were written by 1st respondent/wife requesting the petitioner/husband to take her along with the child/2nd respondent. But there was no response. In 1989, the petitioner/husband filed a petition for divorce in Sub-Court, Salem. The 1st respondent/wife filed another petition for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of these two petitions, through Panchayatars, and relatives the petitioner/husband and his parents were repeatedly requested to take the respondents 1 and 2. However, the petitioner/husband did not incline to take them back. Hence, the wife/1st respondent on her behalf and on behalf of the minor son/2nd respondent filed the petition, claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. each. She also gave the details about the affluent situation of the husband/petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner/husband contested the maintenance petition by stating that the 1st respondent/wife was disobedient, arrogant and she was not co-operating the petitioner/husband to lead a peaceful life and that she was asked to come back to join the husband, but she did not do so. He further stated that the wife/1st respondent had on several occasions insulted the family of the petitioner/husband and so on 21-6-1989 he issued a notice to her.