CRLP/2910/2009 of B. USHARANI Vs T. BALAMURUGAN AND ANOTHER on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Petitioner herein is the wife. She filed a maintenance case i.e.M.C.No.7 of 2005 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court ofV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor claiming amaintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from her husband who is the firstrespondent herein.

3. The learned Magistrate after considering the matter by his orderdated 12.1.2006 partly allowed the above case by granting amaintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Magistrate, the wife filedCrl.R.P.No.16 of 2006 on the file of the Court of I Additional District &Sessions Judge, Chittoor for enhancing of the maintenance. Howeverthe said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judgeby his order dated 31.1.2007. Questioning the same, the wife has comeup with this criminal petition.

4. Sri K.Srinivas pointed out that the respondent has got a job ofMessenger in State Bank of India and by the date of filing of themaintenance case, he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- andtherefore the learned Magistrate ignored the said fact and awarded a meagre amount of Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance. Sri K.Srinivasfurther pointed out certain observations of the learned Magistratethemselves would show that the respondent admitted that his incomewas Rs.12,000/- per month. This cannot be accepted. It may be notedthat the learned Sessions Judge who also wrote an elaborate order hasobserved that P.W.1 i.e. the wife herself in her evidence admitted thatthe respondent was getting only a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. Aperusal of the order of the learned Magistrate and also the learnedSessions Judge would show that the wife could not lead any evidence inthe form of convincing documents to show that the respondent wasworking as a Messenger in the State Bank of India and in any event hewas earning Rs.12,000/- per month even by the date of the maintenancecase.

5. It should be noted that no material has been shown to hold that thelearned Sessions Judge has erroneously decided the matter against theevidence and in fact the learned Sessions Judge observed that theadmission of P.W.1 herself would show that she admitted the income ofthe respondent was Rs.3,000/- per month. The order of the learnedMagistrate would also show that apart from the petitioner the respondenthas to maintain his mother also. In the above circumstances, thequantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Magistrate and confirmedby the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be against evidence.

6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It may be noted that themaintenance case is of 2005 and we are now in December 2011. It shallalways be open for the petitioner to initiate separate proceedings forenhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. or otherwise, ifshe is so advised by leading evidence about changed circumstances regarding her needs and also the income of the husband.

30[th] December, 2011Tjmr

___________________________JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2910 OF 2009

DATE: 30.12.2011