A MOHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. ASMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/husband has filed this revision as against the order dated 04. 09. 2006 in M. C. No 1 of 2006 passed by the Learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil in directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent/wife and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the 2nd and 3rd respondents/minor sons.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband the order of the trial Court is an illegal one and also violative of the principles of natural justice and moreover, the first respondents/wife has approached the trial Court with unclean hands and suppressed many vital and material facts and obtained an order, which is clearly an abuse of process of law and added further, the revision petitioner/husband is working in Ryadh and he has been represented by his father before the trial Court and insisting the revision petitioner to appear before the trial Court and passing an exparte order against him is an erroneous one and the first respondent/wife has filed W. P. No. 4847 of 2006 praying for the relief of injunction restraining the revision petitioner/husband from going abroad pending investigation in a criminal case and this Court on 12. 04. 2006 has directed the revision petitioner/husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), before the Registrar general, High Court and further directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance every month and also the husband has deposited the said sum of rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and also regularly paying Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent/wife and this material fact has been suppressed by the first respondent/wife in the maintenance case and mislead the trial Court which has resulted in a wrong order being passed against the revision petitioner and in reality the factum of receipt of a sum of rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) by the first respondent/wife from the High court has been suppressed before the trial Court and that the wife is in receipt of maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month till date and that the writ appeal filed by the first respondent/wife as against the order passed in writ petition has been dismissed by this Court and this being the fact situation, the subsequent order passed by the trial Court in M. C. No. 1 of 2006 dated 04. 09. 2006 is clearly unsustainable in law and looking at from any angle the order of the trial Court passed in M. C. No. 1 of 2006 dated 04. 09. 2006 is an incorrect one and the same needs to be set at right by this Court in revision and accordingly prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

(3.) CONTENDING contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that before the trial Court the revision petitioner/husband has not appeared and he has been set exparte in M. C. No. 1 of 2006 proceedings and the trial Court has also further observed that the revision petitioner/husband has not filed his counter and accordingly passed an exparte order on 04. 09. 2006 directing the revision petitioner/husband to pay a monthly maintenance a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the first respondent/wife and also directed him to pay a sum o Rs. 10,000/- each to the minor sons namely second and third respondents and the order is a reasonable and a valid one passed on merits of the case and therefore the same need not be interfered with by this Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.