Menaka vs Govindan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3880 Mad

                                                                        Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 16.02.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                        Criminal Revision Case No.1158 of 2019

                     1.Menaka
                     2.Yashika
                     3.Minor Gopika
                       Rep.by mother and natural guardian
                       Menaka                                                 ... Petitioners

                                                        ..vs..

                     Govindan                                                 ... Respondent

                               Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401

                     Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgment dated 04.02.2015 made in M.C.No.6 of

                     2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Harur and allow the Criminal

                     Revision.



                               For Petitioners   :    Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar


                               For Respondent    :    Mr.K.Nagarajan




                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                           Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated

04.02.2015 in M.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Harur.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage between the

first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.10.1993 and out

of their wedlock three female child were born. It is further stated that

there was a difference of opinion between the first petitioner and the

respondent, hence, the relationship between them was broken up. The

first petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court,

Harur for divorce and the same was allowed. In the meanwhile, the first

petitioner and her three daughters filed a petition in M.C.No.6 of 2012

under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from the respondent

herein. The learned Magistrate, after due enquiry dismissed the claim

petition in respect of the first petitioner/wife; and also dismissed as

against elder daughter namely Janani as she already married; and

awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- each per month as maintenance to the

petitioners 2 and 3 herein. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioners

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is

the bounden duty of the husband/respondent to maintain his wife/ the

first petitioner herein, who is a house wife and father of the petitioners 2

and 3. Further, the properties hold by the first petitioner had been

acquired by the parents of the first petitioner, for her welfare, however,

the learned Magistrate failed to consider the same and dismissed the

petition in respect of the first petitioner on the ground that she is having

sufficient means to maintain herself. He would further submit that the

learned Magistrate awarded Rs.1,500/- each per month as maintenance to

the petitioners 2 and 3, but, the same is not sufficient to maintain

themselves. The respondent is working as a driver in the Public

Transport Corporation and is earning Rs.45,000/- per month. But the

maintenance awarded to the children being Rs.1,500/- each is not

sufficient to maintain themselves and hence, the learned counsel seeks

modification in the order passed by the Court below.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

respondent purchased the properties in the name of the first petitioner, in

his own income. The first petitioner is having sufficient means to

maintain herself, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed

the petition in respect of the first petitioner and also dismissed as against

elder daughter namely Janani as she already got married. Subsequently,

the second daughter/ 2nd petitioner herein also got married and the

respondent only borne the marriage expenses. Insofar as the third

daughter/third petitioner herein is concerned, the respondent is paying

the school fees and all other expenses. Therefore, the order passed by the

learned Magistrate is reasonable, it does not warrant any interference by

this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on

record.

6. Admittedly, the jural relationship between the parties are not in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

dispute. The petitioners and the respondent are living separately. The

petitioners filed M.C.No.6 of 2012 seeking maintenance from the

respondent. After considering the entire materials, the learned Magistrate

allowed the petition in favour of the daughters/petitioners 2 and 3 herein.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that so

far, the respondent has not paid the maintenance amount awarded by the

learned Magistrate.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that the respondent is ready to pay the amount, which shows

that the respondent has not paid the maintenance amount awarded by the

learned Magistrate, so far. Though the learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the first petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain

herself. However, the respondent has not produced any documents to

substantiate the same.

8. Though the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

out of three daughters, two daughters have already got married, after

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C the respondent borne all

the marriage expenses of the 2nd daughter. However, the learned

Magistrate, awarded Rs.1,500/- each per month as maintenance to the

petitioners 2 and 3 herein from the date of filing of the petition, till the

date of their marriage.

9. Further, in so far as the wife/first petitioner is concerned, no

material documents have been produced to show that she is having

sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, the order passed by the

learned Magistrate is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay

Rs.5,000/- per month to the first petitioner from the date of petition in

M.C.No.06 of 2012. Insofar as the third petitioner/minor daughter is

concerned, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as

maintenance till the date of her marriage.

With the above modifications, this Criminal Revision Case is

allowed.

16.02.2021 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ms

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Harur.

2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.1158 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

Crl. R.C.No.1158 of 2019

16.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/