RAJA ALIAS PALANISAMY Vs. A RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING and impugning the order dated 31.3.2004, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sagthyamangalam, in M.C.No.8 of 2003, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-The respondents herein filed the M.C.No.8 of 2003 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, claiming maintenance. The revision petitioner resisted the same. Whereupon, during enquiry, on the side of the respondents, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. The revision petitioner did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.750/- per month in favour of each of the respondents herein. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said awarding of maintenance, the husband filed this revision on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-The revision petitioner was not served with notice and an ex-parte order was obtained by the respondents herein. The learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration the fact that the revision petitioner already obtained an order from the competent Court for restitution of conjugal rights as against R1 herein, but she refused to resume cohabitation with him. The revision petitioner is only a coolie and that he is earning only a paltry sum and with that sum he cannot provide such huge maintenance.

(3.) POINT No.(i): A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court Magistrate would reveal that at paragraph No.8, the Magistrate observed that intimation was given to the revision petitioner herein, who was respondent in the M.C. proceedings and since it was not claimed, the learned Judge set him ex-parte. In such a case, I could see no perversity in the order passed by the Magistrate. There is also nothing to indicate that the revision petitioner has filed any application before the Magistrate concerned to get the ex-parte order set aside and accordingly, this point is decided as against the revision petitioner.