KALA ALIAS SASIKALA Vs. T SASHINDRAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.1.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in M.C.No,43 of 2003.)Challenging and impugning the order dated 12.1.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in M.C.No,43 of 2003, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(a) The revision petitioners filed the M.C.No,43 of 2003 before the Magistrate Court as against the respondent, who being the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner, respectively, and sought a sum of Rs.4000/-p.m. for the first petitioner and Rs.3500/-p.m. for the child towards maintenance. The husband resisted the claim. Whereupon the enquiry was conducted. (b) During enquiry, on the revision petitioners' side, the first petitioner-wife was examined as P.W.1 along with three others as P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked.(c) Ultimately, the lower Court awarded maintenance of Rs.400/- per month in favour of the first petitioner and Rs.600/- per month in favour of the second petitioner payable by the respondent herein.

(3.) AT this juncture, I would like to highlight and spotlight the fact that in this case the respondent/husband's liability to pay maintenance to the revision petitioners is beyond question. The respondent would contend that as per Ex.R1, he is earning only a sum of Rs.4,015/-/- and hence, he cannot be asked to part with more than Rs.1000/- totally towards maintenance as ordered by the lower Court. I cannot countenance and uphold the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent for the reason that the general formula, which has been accepted as a common or garden principle, is that a male should part with at least 2/3rd of his income in favour of his wife and child and he cannot appropriate more for himself and leave his wife and child in the lurch and make them to languish in a cash strapped and impecunious circumstance.