Madras High Court
S.Dhivya vs M.Prabu on 25 October, 2021
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
1. S.Dhivya
W/o, Prabu
2. Minor Harnith
S/o, Prabu
Rep. By mother and natural guardian
S.Dhivya/1st petitioner ... Petitioners
Versus
M.Prabu,
S/o, Muniappan ...
Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated
21.08.2020 made in M.C.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Harur and enhance the maintenance amount.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rameshkumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sivakumar
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
judgment dated 21.08.2020 passed in M.C.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate, Harur and to enhance the maintenance amount.
2. First petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son.
3. The petitioner filed a maintenance case before the Judicial
Magistrate, Harur in M.C.No.6 of 2017 against the respondent/husband,
claiming Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. The said petition was decided by
the learned Magistrate and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- to
the first petitioner and Rs.8,000/- to the second petitioner as maintenance.
Challenging the said order of maintenance, the petitioners have filed the
present revision petition before this Court for enhancement of the
maintenance amount.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
respondent already a divorcee and got married with the first petitioner in
the year 2010. They lived together only for three months. Thereafter, the
respondent shown his original colour and demanded dowry and not
satisfied with the sridhana articles provided by the first petitioner's
parents. Hence, the respondent denied the conjugal rights of the first
petitioner. The respondent sent the first petitioner for delivery to her
parents home and he did not turn to see her. He neither cared about her
nor paid any amount for her maintenance. He did not see even his child.
Therefore, no other option, the petitioner has filed the maintenance case.
Further, he would submit that the respondent is working as a teacher and
he was getting a salary more than Rs.35,000/- at the time of marriage and
even at the time of evidence also, he was getting a salary of Rs.76,000/-.
The learned Magistrate failed to consider the above facts and also the
fact that the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent is
not denied, paternity of the child/second respondent born to the petitioner
is also not disputed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
counsel for the respondent and perused the materials on record.
6. Since the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and
the employment of the respondent and his salary are also not in dispute,
the learned Magistrate should have ordered the maintenance as prayed for
by the petitioners. However, the learned Magistrate directed the
respondent to pay only Rs.5,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively to the first
and second petitioners. The petitioners are not having sufficient means to
maintain themselves, where as, the respondent is working as a teacher
and having sufficient means to maintain his wife and child. The
Magistrate failed to appreciate the economical condition of the respondent
and the pathetic situation of the petitioners and ordered the maintenance
amount which is a only a meagre amount, which warrants interference.
7. Considering the fact that the wife with an infant child taking
care of herself without any means and the respondent husband is having
sufficient means and working as a teacher and despite he has not paid the
maintenance and neglected to maintain them, this Court is inclined to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
dispose of the revision case.
8. On a careful reading of the petition filed by the petitioner before
the Magistrate in M.C.No.6 of 2017 and the counter filed by the
respondent husband before the Magistrate, it is found that he is not
denying the factum of marriage and the paternity of the child and also
employment and salary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is found that the petitioners are not living with the respondent.
The first petitioner is living with her child separately. The respondent
husband has not provided any monetary benefits to his wife and child.
However, the respondent is a graduate and he is working as a teacher in
the Government School and as of now, he is getting the salary more than
Rs.75,000/- and therefore, under this circumstance, the petitioners prayed
only Rs.10,000/- each as maintenance amount . Even that prayer was not
considered by the Magistrate and ordered only Rs.5,000/- and Rs.8,000/-
respectively to the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
9. Considering the income of the respondent, who is getting more
than Rs.70,000/- and he is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- each as prayed for by
the petitioners. Considering the economical condition and status of the
respondent and the petitioners are not having sufficient means, the
Revision Case is liable to be allowed. Hence the order dated 21.08.2020
passed in M.C.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Harur
is set aside and the maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each
to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
25.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mfa
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Judicial Magistrate Court,
Harur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mfa
CRL.R.C.No.227 of 2021
25.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
