A SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. DURGA DEVI AND MINOR MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) Challenging the order, dated 16.09.2009 made in Crl.M.P. No. 151 of 2007 in M.C. No. 7 of 2001, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, the Criminal Revision has been preferred.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the first Respondent herein is the wife and the second Respondent is the minor daughter of the Petitioner herein. The first Respondent, on her own behalf and as guardian and next friend of the minor second Respondent, had filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. Originally, the Court below passed an order directing the Petitioner herein to pay each of the Respondents herein at Rs. 350/- towards maintenance. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was paying the aforesaid maintenance to the Respondents. Subsequently, the Respondents herein filed a petition for enhancement of maintenance. As per the order dated 26.03.2010, made in Crl.M.P. No. 151 of 2007 in M.C. No. 7 of 2001, the learned Family Court's Judge passed an order directing the revision Petitioner herein to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs. 700/- to the Respondents. The said order was not challenged by the Petitioner herein. It cannot be disputed that the maintenance amount awarded in favour of the Respondents by the Court below is not exorbitant. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court, the docket order dated 16.09.2009 of the Court below. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the Court below has not complied with the proviso to Section 125(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follow: