Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.3492 of 2022
Sellakannu @ Thatchanamoorthy ...Petitioner
..vs..
1.Arulselvi
2.Haripriyan
3.Kessorprakash
4.Minor Aktheerasri
5.Minor Iswariya
Minors 4 & 5 are represented by
their mother and natural guardian
Arulselvi ... Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C to
set aside the order dated 06.01.2021 made in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019 on the
file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem in partly modifying the
judgment dated 25.07.2017 in M.C.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
Magistrate Court No.1, Attur and to allow the above revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.G.Purusothaman
ORDER
This revision has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 06.01.2021 made in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem.
2. The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 4. Originally, the respondents herein filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.2 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur. After trial, the trial Court by an order dated 25.07.2017, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents 3 to 5 till they attain majority. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem. The learned Appellate Judge partly allowed the appeal and set aside the maintenance order passed in favour of the Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022 respondents 1 and 2 herein and confirmed the order in favour of the respondents 3 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the wife was leading adulterous life and on that ground, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate as regards the maintenance ordered in favour of the first petitioner/wife. The petitioner has lost his job and he does not have any independent source of income to maintain himself and if that be the situation, the petitioner cannot maintain his children. Further, out of four children, two children have already attained majority. Both the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider that a person who is not able to maintain himself with sufficient means, could not maintain his wife and the children.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision petitioner has not proved that the mother of the children leads Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022 adulterous and that she was driven from her matrimonial home along with the children and now she is residing with her children. In order to pay maintenance amount, the petitioner has taken such a false allegation. Though the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the entire materials and ordered maintenance, however, the Appellate Court, without considering the fact that the petitioner has not established that first respondent/wife is leading adulterous life, modified the order passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the respondent/wife does not know about the order of the appellate Court and hence, she has not challenged the same.
5. Admittedly, the relationship between that parties is not in dispute and paternity of the children is also not in dispute and now both the petitioner and respondents are living separately and the same is also not in dispute. Though the revision petitioner has stated that he has no sufficient means to maintain himself and therefore, he is not liable to maintain his wife and children, both the Courts below failed to consider that even the petitioner himself is supported by his own mother. Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision petitioner has not produced any materials to prove his financial capacity and hence, the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition and ordered maintenance to the respondents herein. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Judge set aside the order passed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. However, the first respondent has not challenged the judgment of the Appellate Court.
7.It seems that all the children are minors at the time of filing the maintenance case. Subsequently, two of the children attained majority, but they are continuing their studies. But, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the major children are settled in their life and they are able to maintain themselves
8. When once the petition is filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C at that time when the children are minors, the parents are liable to maintain their children till they attain majority and they are able to lead their life independently. Further, Section 125 Cr.P.C is a beneficiary Legislation and therefore, while pending proceedings, if the children continue their Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022 education, the parents are liable to maintain their children even if they attain majority, till they complete their education.
9.In the case on hand, the petitioner has not proved his financial status that he is unable to maintain himself and hence, he is not liable to maintain his wife and children.
10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity or irregularity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022 To
1. The III Additional District Judge, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Attur.
Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3492 of 2022 13.09.2022 Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis