employed. Even then, it is immaterial. Because under Hindu Law an husband
should maintain his wife. A Hindu husband will not say that his wife must go
to work and get herself maintained. No where an Hindu husband, while
marrying a lady will say, I will marry you provided you must work and earn
and feed herself. It would be against Hindu philosophy. So this is one
aspect of the matter.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.34 of 2016
T.Kanagavelrajan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Kaleeswari
2.K.Priyadarshini
... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed in maintenance case in
M.C.No.149 of2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
The revision petitioner challenges grant of maintenance at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife / R1 and to his daughter / R2.
2.The revision petitioner is a Postman. He belongs to Theni. He
married a girl belonging to Madurai. They were gifted with the 2nd
respondent, who is 2 years old. But fate made this spouses to live apart due
to difference of opinion.
3.The revision petitioner is a Central Government employee. He was
asked to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to each respondent.
4.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the
Postman is a poorman. He is taking care of a very big family, consisting of
aged old mother, widowed sister, their children. What he was getting after
deduction, is only Rs.20,499/-. The 1st respondent is employed in a shop in
Madurai. She is also earning.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that there is no evidence that the wife is earning. The 2nd
respondent is a 2 years old kid. It is not that their mother is being taken
care of by the revision petitioner alone. He himself admitted in evidence
that his other brother also contributes for the maintenance of their mother.
Therefore, the maintenance granted by the Trial Court cannot be faulted.
6.I have considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order
and also the materials on record.
7.There is no evidence to establish that the 1st respondent is
employed. Even then, it is immaterial. Because under Hindu Law an husband
should maintain his wife. A Hindu husband will not say that his wife must go
to work and get herself maintained. No where an Hindu husband, while
marrying a lady will say, I will marry you provided you must work and earn
and feed herself. It would be against Hindu philosophy. So this is one
aspect of the matter.
8.The revision petitioner is a Central Government employee. Even after
deductions, from his salary is Rs.23,000/- he is receiving more than
Rs.20,000/-. Further, there is upward annual revision of salary of every 6
months D.A. increases. Central Government / State Government employees
salary always increases.
9.It is pertinent to note that not only the revision petitioner alone
is the only son of his mother, equally the other brother also has to take
care of his mother and he is also taking care of her.
10.Now in Madurai a grown up woman and a child to meet their expenses
towards a roof, food, cloth and extra nourishment for the child Rs.5,000/-
per month will not be a fabulous amount. It would be hand to mouth. This
amount is minimum required. This amount would contribute minimum to pull the
days. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the amount ordered cannot
be said to be excessive.
11.In the circumstances, this revision fails and it is dismissed.
To
The Family Court, Madurai..
No comments:
Post a Comment