Madras High Court
Ravikumar vs P.Kavitha on 1 February, 2021
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 01.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6361 of 2018
Ravikumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Kavitha
2.Minor.Mohan Ram
3.Minor.Malarkothai
(Respondents 2 & 3 are minors rep. By
their next friend and natural guardian
by the first respondent herein) .. Respondents
Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment, dated 18.06.2016, made in M.C.No.3 of
2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and to set aside the
judgment by allowing this Criminal Revision.
For Petitioner : Ms.T.Tamil Malar
legal aid counsel
For Respondents : Mr.B.Elankumaran
1/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment,
dated 18.06.2016, made in M.C.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Periyakulam and to set aside the same.
2.The revision petitioner is the husband. The first respondent herein
is the wife and the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the minor children of the
revision petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition before the
Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, claiming maintenance from the petitioner
herein. That petition was numbered as M.C.No.3 of 2016 and after enquiry,
the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, ordered the revision petitioner/
huaband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the wife and
Rs.3,500/- each to the children. Against that impugned order, the petitioner
preferred this Revision.
3.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the revision
petitioner has spent money for the studies of the minor respondents.
Already the first respondent / wife lodged a complaint before the All
Women Police Station, Theni and the Police advised the wife to live along
2/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
with her husband, even now, the revision petitioner / husband is ready and
willing to live with the wife. The first respondent herein / wife suppressed
the earlier cases and filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming
maintenance of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner has retired from Indian Army
and he has no other source of income and he has to maintain his aged
parents. But, without considering those facts, the Magistrate, passed the
the impugned order. The first respondent / wife is having valuable property
and she is deriving income from that property and without considering the
same, the trial Court passed the impugned order and prayed the impugned
order to be set aside.
4.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the first
respondent / wife has claimed Rs.25,000/-, whereas, the trial Court ordered
only Rs.10,000/-. The second respondent doing his ninth standard and the
third respondent is doing his seventh standard. There is an arrears of
maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is stated that only the
grandfather is paying the expenses for the studies of the minor children.
There is no proof that the husband purchased a property on behalf of the
first respondent / wife and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
3/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
5.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner and the first
respondent got married on 18.11.2001 at Balasubramaniyar Temple. There
is no dispute regarding the marriage or the paternity of the children. On the
side of the revision petitioner, it is admitted that the petitioner is an
Ex-Military man. In the counter filed by the petitioner before the trial
Court, it is stated that the petitioner is wealthy, even, before marrying the
first respondent / wife. It is admitted that the petitioner is running a
Poultry Farm and a Match Industry. The defence taken by the revision
petitioner before the trial Court is that the revision petitioner spent for the
expenses of the children, but, no such document is filed by the revision
petitioner. On the side of the revision petitioner two documents, that is,
two L.I.C. Policies are marked to prove that the petitioner has taken L.I.C.
Policies in the name of the respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court has
observed that further premium were not paid by the revision petitioner.
6.It is seen that Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are documents relating to the
educational expenses for the minor respondents 2 and 3. From Ex.P4 and
Ex.P5, it is clear that the revision petitioner has not spent anything for the
education of the minors. Ex.P11 to Ex.P14 are documents relating to
4/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
purchase of the property. The revision petitioner in his counter before the
trial Court has admitted that he is having landed properties.
7.The revision petitioner has not filed any document to show that the
revision petitioner has purchased certain properties in the name of his wife /
first respondent herein. The revision petitioner has failed to prove that the
first respondent is earning from the landed properties or she is doing any
job. Since the marriage is admitted and since there is no dispute regarding
the paternity of the minor respondents 2 and 3, the revision petitioner is
duty bound to maintain his family. Since the revision petitioner has
admitted that he is wealthy, even before the date of marriage and
considering that the revision petitioner is an Ex-Military man, having
monthly pension, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition.
8. The amount fixed by the trial Court is that the petitioner has to pay
a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.3,500/- each to the minor
respondents 2 and 3. Considering the cost of living and considering the fact
that the respondents 2 and 3 are school going children, the amount already
fixed by the trial Court is reasonable. There is nothing sufficient enough to
interfere with the order of the trial Court.
5/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
9.Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The revision
petitioner is directed to deposit the entire arrears amount within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The revision
petitioner is also directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount on or
before fifth of every month towards the maintenance to the respondents.
Interim maintenance, if any, already deposited by the revision petitioner is
to be deducted from the arrears amount. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Periyakulam.
2.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
6/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.456 of 2018
01.02.2021
7/
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
