RANGANATHAN Vs. VELUMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE whole kit and caboodle of facts relevant for the disposal of this revision would run thus:- THE respondents herein filed M.C.48 of 2004 in the Family Court, Coimbatore seeking maintenance as against the revision petitioner herein on the ground that the revision petitioner being the husband of first respondent and father of the 2nd respondent herein neglected to maintain them. Since the revision petitioner resisted the claim for maintenance, enquiry was conducted. On the side of the respondents herein, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner, though two witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, no documents were marked. Ultimately, the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of the 1st respondent herein and a sum of Rs.500/- per month in favour of the 2nd respondent herein payable by the revision petitioner.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:- The revision petitioner did not neglect to maintain the respondents whereas the first respondent only was responsible for causing rift in the matrimonial relationship between herself and the revision petitioner. The allegation of dowry made by 1st respondent was baseless. Therefore the revision petitioner filed an application in H.M.O.P. No,399 of 2001 as against the respondents seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. Without properly appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court simply awarded such maintenance warranting interference by this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that even the said HMOP was dismissed and the revision petitioner is not earning any amount. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that at no point of time, he was responsible for the cleavage in the relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent and he has no income to provide maintenance to the respondents herein. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Family Court.