MYLSAMY Vs. POONGODOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision case is directed against the order of maintenance dated 15. 06. 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani in M. C. No. 8 of 2003, directing payment of a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to each one of the respondents herein, who are admittedly the wife and minor daughter of the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE first respondent for herself and on behalf of the second respondent minor Nandhini had filed the Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 2003 claiming a total sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month towards maintenance for herself and for the second respondent, based on the allegation that the revision petitioner neglected and refused to maintain the respondents. It was the further averment made by the respondents in their petition that the petitioner was having seven acres of land from which he was deriving an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) per annum whereas the respondents did not have any source of income to maintain themselves. Even though the petitioner herein entered appearance before the trial court by engaging a counsel, he did not choose to file any counter statement denying the petition averments. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate conducted trial, in which two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked on the side of the respondents herein/petitioners in the Maintenance Case. Similarly two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent in the Maintenance Case. A photograph and its negative have been marked as M. Os. 1 and 2 on the side of the respondents herein. At the conclusion of trial, in the light of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the evidence adduced on either side, both oral and documentary and came to the conclusion that the respondents herein were entitled to claim maintenance from the revision petitioner. The quantum of maintenance payable to each one of the respondents was fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the revision petitioner has brought forth the present revision case under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr. P. C.

(3.) THIS Court heard the submissions made by the learned Advocate representing the revision petitioner and Mr. T. Murugamanickam, Advocate representing the respondents herein. This Court also perused the relevant materials available on record.