ARUMUGAM Vs. BAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the the order dated 18.10.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in M.C.No.12 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) THE nitty-gritty of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case, would run thus: THE respondents being the wife and minor child of the revision petitioner filed the M.C.No.12 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Whereupon, the trial Court, after conducting enquiry and hearing both sides, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of each of them. Being dis-satisfied with and aggrieved by the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:- THE learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration that the revision petitioner was not at all at fault in maintaining the respondents, and it is his wife, who refused to resume cohabitation and live along with him in the matrimonial home.

(3.) THIS is a singularly singular case, in which, the husband even by way of defence could not utter out even a single sentence as against his wife that she was having some abominable or rebarbative attitude on her part in staying away from him and this Court notes it significantly. In paragraph 7 of the counter, what are all the husband by way of defence would put forth against his wife was that she of her own accord had chosen to stay away from the husband. THIS, in my opinion seems to be a far fetched defence. The wife has come forward with the clear case that the husband, namely, the revision petitioner demanded 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and also a cash of Rs.50,000/- and as there was no positive response from the bribe's side, he refused to take back the wife with the child, after the wife delivered the male child while she was staying with her father. Admittedly, the wife lodged a complaint with the police as against her husband imputing cruelty as against him, wherefore, it is quite obvious that the Magistrate was justified in inferring and understanding that it was the husband, who refused or failed to take back the wife and child and accordingly, au fait with law and au courant with facts, the learned Magistrate correctly gave the finding that both of them did deserve maintenance to be obtained from the revision petitioner herein, warranting no interference by this Court.