KALIMUTHU Vs. SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in M.C.No,5 of 2005.)Animadverting upon the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in M.C.No,5 of 2005, this criminal revision is focussed.

(2.) AN epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this criminal revision could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:(i) The respondents herein filed M.C.No,5 of 2005 before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai seeking maintenance as against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner resisted the claim, the enquiry was conducted.(ii) During enquiry, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the respondent's side, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.(iii) Ultimately, the lower court awarded maintenance in a sum of Rs.500/- per month payable by the revision petitioner in favour of each of the respondents herein.(iv) Challenging and impugning, such awarding of maintenance in favour of the respondents herein, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:(a) The HMOP filed by the revision petitioner as against the first respondent would indicate and display that the revision petitioner was not at fault but it was the first respondent/wife who failed to resume co-habitation with him. As such the learned Magistrate misunderstood the entire facts and simply awarded maintenance. (b) There is no reason spelt out in the judgment for having fixed such quantum of maintenance.

(3.) THE points for consideration are as to:-1. Whether, there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding maintenance by the lower court, in favour of the respondents herein payable by the revision petitioner and 2. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded is reasonable or not?