Full Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The order of reduction of maintenance by the Sessions Court, is challenged in this revision.
2. The 1st petitioner/wife, on her behalf and on behalf of the two minor children filed an application for maintenance, claiming the same from her husband, the respondent herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, after conducting enquiry in M.C. No. 18 of 1990, awarded maintenance, directing the respondent/husband, to pay Rs. 300/- p.m., to the 1st petitioner/ wife and Rs. 250/- each to the minor children/petitioners 2 and 3 herein. Aggrieved over this, the respondent/husband, filed a revision in Crl.R.C. No. 10 of 1992,on the file of Sessions Judge, Chengalpat. On hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 300/-to Rs. 250/-tothewifeandfromRs.250/-to Rs. 125/- to the minor children, petitioners 2 and 3, totalling Rs. 500/-per month.
3. Mr. P. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the verdict given by the learned Sessions Judge, holding that all the petitioners, the wife and two minor children would be put together entitled to a total sum of Rs. 500/- p.m.. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, that a reading of Section 125, Cr.P.C., would disclose that every claimant is entitled to a maximum maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. As such, the inference of the Sessions Judge, that all the claimants are put together entitled to the said maximum sum of Rs. 500/- is wrong. I could see, that there is some force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 125, Cr.P.C., reads thus :
'125. Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or ,
(b) his legitimate ...... minor child, whether married or not unable to maintain itself; or
a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child,...... at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time direct.'
The literal meaning of the section could be, that each of the claimants is entitled upto Rs. 500/- as the maximum amount of maintenance. But, I am at loss to understand, how the Sessions Court, gave such a meaning that all the claimants are put together entitled to Rs. 500/-only. Therefore, the order of Sessions Judge suffers from legal infirmity. As such, the order of learned Sessions Judge, in Crl.R.C. No. 10 of 1992, is liable to be modified.
4. Regarding the quantum, learned Counsel for the respondent would argue, that the quantum fixed by the Trial Court at Rs. 300/- to the wife and Rs. 250/-to the minor children, are excessive, and the respondent/husband is not in a position to pay such a huge sum as maintenance to them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and present days' high cost of living, I feel that fixing a sum of Rs. 250/- to the wife/lst petitioner and a sum of Rs. 200/- each to the minor children/petitioners 2 and 3, as maintenance, would meet the interest of justice. Accordingly, the respondent/husband is directed to pay maintenance at Rs. 250/- p.m., to the wife and Rs. 200/- each to the two minor children, totalling a sum of Rs. 650/- p.m. from the date of petition filed for maintenance, before the Trial Court.
5. The revision is allowed accordingly, modifying the order of learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.