Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
and Crl.MP(MD)No.2874 of 2020
S. Murugaraja
... Petitioner
Vs
Parvathy @ Episha,
W/o. S.Murugaraj, Ponnammalpatti,
Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the order dated 20/02/2017 made in M.C.No.02
of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Kaliraj
For Respondent : Mr.A.Muralikumar
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the impugned order, dated 20/02/2017, in M.C.No.02 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.
2.The facts in brief:
(i)The marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife took place on 03.06.2011, as per their customary rites. After their marriage, they were residing in a joint family. For about 33 days only the respondent lived with the petitioner. During that time, he received 30 sovereigns of jewels from the respondent, for the purpose of purchasing house in Coimbatore. The salary of the petitioner was not handed over to the respondent, but the same was handed over to the wife of petitioner's brother, over which, dispute arose between them. On 28.10.2011, the respondent lodged a complaint, before the Superintendent of Police, Theni. During the enquiry, the petitioner promised to sever the relationship with his brother's wife and arrange a separate house in Coimbatore. But he failed to do so. Though the petitioner earned Rs.20,000/- per month, as a Government Servant and also income from the coconut groove, he is not maintaining the respondent properly. Hence, the respondent filed a petition seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, which was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020 resisted by the petitioner stating that the respondent is not willing to live with the petitioner and she is having contact with very many persons and the petitioner has to maintain his old aged parents, apart from that, he is not having any source of income.
(ii)At the conclusion of enquiry, the trial Court found that the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain his wife and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance, from the date of petition.
3.Challenging the same, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that there was wilful desertion on the part of the respondent. Therefore, he filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.192 of 2012, before Sub Court, Theni. By suppressing the above facts, the respondent has filed the petition for maintenance. The respondent is running a Paramedical College and having sufficient income and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. However, considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed the above said order.
4.Perusal of records shows that the contention on the part of revision petitioner that the respondent has received Rs.1 lakh, even at the time https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020 of making compromise in the previous complaint was false. Similarly, the ground that the respondent is running a Paramedical College and earning sufficient income was also rejected by the trial Court. During the course of evidence, the petitioner himself admitted that he was earning more than Rs.29,000/-, as monthly salary, on the date of examination before the trial Court. Having admitted that he is receiving more than Rs.29,000/-, he failed to pay the maintenance amount.
5.It is further seen that repeated applications have been filed by the respondent for enforcement of the said order. At one point of time, attachment of salary was also ordered. Calculation memo is filed by the respondent to show the balance amount of maintenance. Whether the above said attachment is still in force or not is not clear on record. Perusal of calculation memo shows that totally Rs.9,20,000/- remains to be paid by the petitioner. As I mentioned earlier, after attachment of salary, how much amount was attached and how much amount was received by the respondent is not clear on record. Whatever it may be, those facts and circumstances cannot be gone into now, unless if there is any material irregularity or illegality in the order, this Court cannot interfere.
6.Even though the matter was referred to Mediation for conciliation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020 process, it could not be finalised and the matter was referred back to Court. Considering the above facts, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon the Judgment of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in 2017(3) CTC 209, for the purpose of argument that only 25% of net salary of the husband can be spared for maintenance. As I mentioned earlier, the petitioner himself admitted, at the time of evidence, that he is working as a Constable, in Central Security Force and he is earning more than Rs.29,000/- per month, and 1/3 of the salary amount was ordered as maintenance. So this cannot be considered as excessive amount, considering the cost of living in the present day. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, this revision case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.09.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PNM https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020 G.ILANGOVAN,J.
PNM ORDER IN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020 and Crl.MP(MD)No.2874 of 2020 21.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6