Roshan Thomas vs Sheela Paul
2021 Latest Caselaw 9523 Mad

                                                                                         Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021


                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED :   15.04.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                   Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021 &
                                                   Crl.M.P.No.3660 of 2021


                     Roshan Thomas                                  ...    Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     1.Sheela Paul
                     2.Jiyah Grach Rohan,
                       D/o.Roshan Thomas,
                       Minor represented by her mother and
                        Natural Guardian of the first respondent,
                       No.75, 1st Street, 1st Cross, Shanthi Nagar Post,
                       S.M.Nagar, Chennai - 600 062.                ...    Respondents




                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside
                     the Judgment dated 30.09.2019 made in M.C.No.29 of 2018, on the file of the
                     learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur.



                                  For Petitioner        :     Ms.S.Kala

                                  For Respondents       :     Mr.R.John Sathyan


                     1/9




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                                       Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021




                                                         ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of granting

maintenance to the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur,

dated 30.09.2019 in M.C.No.29 of 2018.

2. The first respondent herein is the wife and the second respondent

herein is the minor daughter of the petitioner. Earlier, the respondents filed a

petition in M.C.No.29 of 2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance

before the Court below against the petitioner. The Court below allowed the said

petition and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- each

per month to the first respondent/wife and to the second respondent/daughter

as maintenance, totalling a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month. Challenging the

above said order, the present criminal revision case has been filed by the

petitioner/husband.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first

respondent/wife is well educated, and even qualified more than the

petitioner/husband. The first respondent is living in her parent's house, which is

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

the own house of her father and left the matrimonial home on her own volition

and as such, she is not entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner.

However, as far as the second respondent/minor daughter is concerned, the

petitioner/father, is ready and willing to pay the maintenance, as per order

passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel would submit that the

first respondent has not proved that she is not having any sufficient means to

maintain herself and filed the affidavit to that effect, therefore, the order

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is liable to be set-aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though the

first respondent/wife was working earlier, she was not working on the date of

filing of the petition and there was no proof to show that during the pendency of

the Maintenance Case, the first respondent is an earning member. Since the first

respondent is not having any sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor

child, the learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking note of the income received

by the petitioner/husband, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- each to the

respondents, which warrants no interference. It is further submitted by the

learned counsel, as per the direction of this Court dated 04.01.2021, the

petitioner/husband has deposited a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- towards arrears, as

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

against the original arrears, in the name of the second respondent/daughter,

and also seeks transfer of said amount into her account and also seeks to utilize

the said amount for the welfare of the minor child/second respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

placed on record.

6. It is seen from records that the petitioner married the first

respondent on 31.01.2011 and out of their wedlock, the second respondent was

born to them on 16.01.2015 . Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondents

were living separately. The second respondent/minor child is under the care and

custody of the mother/the first respondent herein. Therefore, the respondents

filed M.C.No.1 of 2014 seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each from the

petitioner. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate found that the petitioner is

having sufficient means, whereas, the first respondent is not in a position to

maintain herself and her minor child. Therefore, the learned Magistrate awarded

monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- each. Further, the jural relationship

between the parties and also the paternity of the minor child are not in dispute.

The petitioner has not produced any oral or documentary evidence to show that

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

the first respondent is having sufficient income.

7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that due to

COVID-19, the petitioner's salary has been reduced and he is finding it very

difficult to maintain himself and his parents, a perusal of the order passed by

the learned Magistrate, it could be seen that the learned Judicial Magistrate

after taking note of the evidence adduced by the petitioner/husband, during the

financial year 2017-2018, the petitioner's monthly income was Rs.46,140/-; and

even the maintenance ordered by the learned Magistrate

to the respondents was below 50% of the salary of the petitioner/husband and

further, the order of maintenance was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

during the year 2019, when there was no existence of COVID-19, and as such, the

contention of the learned counsel is not merit acceptable.

8. Considering the above facts and economical status of the

respondent/husband, this Court is of the view that the order of maintenance of

Rs.12,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife and Rs.12,000/- per month

to the second respondent/daughter, is very reasonable. While, exercising

revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not re-appreciate the entire evidence as

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

appellate Court. While excising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to see

whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court

below. On a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, this Court does

not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Ambattur in M.C.No.29 of 2018.

9. The petitioner/husband is directed to close the Fixed Deposit, which

was taken in the name of the second respondent/minor daughter, as per the

direction of this Court dated 04.01.2021, and transfer the proceeds into the

account of the first respondent/wife, within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the first

respondent/wife shall utilize the said amount for the benefit of the second

respondent/minor daughter. The petitioner is further directed to pay the

remaining arrears of maintenance within one month from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order and also to continue to pay Rs.12,000/- each as monthly

maintenance on every 5th day of the subsequent months thereafter. Failing

which, the learned Magistrate is directed to issue warrant to the petitioner and

execute the order in accordance with law, without any formal application.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

10. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.04.2021

Speaking Order / Non-speaking order

Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes.

rns

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

To

The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

rns

Crl.R.C.No.168 of 2021 & Crl.M.P.No.3660 of 2021

15.04.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in