MANDAKALAI Vs. MUTHURAKKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Judicial Magistrate-No.I, Sivaganga, dated 29-4-2002 made in M.C.No.11/2000, granting maintenance to the petitioners/respondents herein at the rate of Rs.400/- per month each, the respondent/revision petitioner herein has preferred the above Revision.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing my attention to Ex.R-1 Settlement Deed dated 13-10-2000, would contend that in the light of the fact that the petitioner/respondent has settled a house property in favour of all the 3 children, namely, respondents 2 to 4 herein, the direction of the learned Magistrate, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/-per month to each of them cannot be sustained. After going through the order impugned and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, I am unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent herein, and also it is not disputed that three children (petitioners 2 to 4/respondents 2 to 4 herein) were born to them. It is also stated that the wife was driven out from the matrimonial home along with the children. It is further seen from the materials that she is unable to maintain herself and not possessed property. No doubt, the petitioner has settled a house in favour of his children. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate that the respondents were provided with a shelter, however, in the absence of any income, they cannot survive by means of a house alone. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is employed as a driver in the State Transport Corporation as well as his gross salary, the amount of Rs.400/- to each of the petitioners/respondents herein cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, in the absence of any other material, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate; consequently the Revision fails and the same is dismissed. Crl.M.C.No.5404 of 2002 is also dismissed.