MOHAMMED ASAN Vs. ASIABIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track Court No. III), Coimbatore, granting maintenance to the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present criminal original petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner and the respondent got married on 19. 08. 1987 and dispute arose between them in March 1988 and thereafter on 01. 0. 1988, a Panchayat was held in the Jamath and she was taken back by the petitioner-husband. Thereafter, the petitioner-husband said to have beaten the respondent-wife and did not provide her sufficient food and made her starve and hence, again she went again to her mother's house. The petitioner has married another woman who has got four children through her. Therefore, the respondent-wife filed an application in M. C. No. 1 of 2002 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Pollachi, claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month who in turn by order dated 19. 02. 2003 awarded maintenance at Rs. 750/- per month and also a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner-husband filed Crl. R. P. No. 43 of 2003 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Coimbatore and the learned Judge by order dated 31. 10. 20203 dismissed the said revision with modification that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved over the said order the petitioner-husband is before this Court invoking Section 482 of code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) MR. A. M. Rahmat Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the grounds raised before the trial Court and revision Court, were not considered by the said Courts. The first ground is that only after getting permission from the respondent-wife, the petitioner married another woman and the second ground is that the petitioner has pronounced Talaq on the respondent and therefore, the respondent is not entitled for maintenance. He would further contend that there is no justification for the respondent to live separately from her husband without any reason.