Skip to content


N.K. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Alamelu Achi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad342; (1943)1MLJ230
AppellantN.K. Ramanathan Chettiar
RespondentAlamelu Achi
Excerpt:
- - jayarama aiyar has dwelt at some length on the failure of the learned magistrate to find on the question of neglect or refusal to maintain the wife but it is clear from the order of the lower court that the petitioner was willing to pay maintenance provided it was fixed at not more than rs. clearly it is not open to the petitioner at this stage to plead that there has been no finding against him regarding refusal, ill-treatment or neglect and the only question is whether the order of the learned magistrate fixing maintenance at rs......the husband's petition mr. k. s. jayarama aiyar has dwelt at some length on the failure of the learned magistrate to find on the question of neglect or refusal to maintain the wife but it is clear from the order of the lower court that the petitioner was willing to pay maintenance provided it was fixed at not more than rs. 250 per annum. when he was asked by the learned magistrate what he had to say in answer to his wife's claim, he denied the allegations of cruelty and concluded with these words, ' as agreed to previously by me, i am willing to pay maintenance to the petitioner at rs. 250 per annum. i am not in a position to pay the petitioner rs. 100 per mensem.' in view of this statement the pleas of neglect and refusal were abandoned in the lower court and the case went to trial.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Byers, J.

1. The petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1942 on the file of the Joint Magistrate of Devakottai obtained an order against her husband under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per mensem. Her husband has come up in revision for the reduction of the amount to the figure offered by him, and the wife has applied for the enhancement of the amount awarded. In arguing the husband's petition Mr. K. S. Jayarama Aiyar has dwelt at some length on the failure of the learned Magistrate to find on the question of neglect or refusal to maintain the wife but it is clear from the order of the lower Court that the petitioner was willing to pay maintenance provided it was fixed at not more than Rs. 250 per annum. When he was asked by the learned Magistrate what he had to say in answer to his wife's claim, he denied the allegations of cruelty and concluded with these words, ' as agreed to previously by me, I am willing to pay maintenance to the petitioner at Rs. 250 per annum. I am not in a position to pay the petitioner Rs. 100 per mensem.' In view of this statement the pleas of neglect and refusal were abandoned in the lower Court and the case went to trial only on the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. Clearly it is not open to the petitioner at this stage to plead that there has been no finding against him regarding refusal, ill-treatment or neglect and the only question is whether the order of the learned Magistrate fixing maintenance at Rs. 75 per mensem necessitates interference in revision. The learned Magistrate has dealt with at some length with the husband's means and he fixed the sum of Rs. 250 per annum as bare house-keeping expenses. He added to this an equal figure for house rent and a sum of Rs. 150 on account of clothing. There was evidence that the petitioner's wife is an invalid and would require a servant and some provision for medical attendance. The Magistrate therefore added a further sum of Rs. 250 on this head and Mr. Jayarama Iyer has objected to the inclusion of these items as being beyond the scope of Section 488 of the Code. In the case of a wife who is admittedly an invalid and requires medical attention, I do not think it can be said that the expenses of a reasonable amount of medical attention appropriate to her status in life are not within the meaning of the word ' maintenance ' as used in the Code. There does not appear to be anything in the learned Magistrate's order which is incorrect, illegal or improper within the meaning of Section 435 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the same reason it follows that there is no necessity to interfere in revision on behalf of the wife for the enhancement of the amount. Both the petitions are accordingly ordered to be dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //