Madras High Court
Senthil Kumar vs Kasthuri on 29 October, 2021
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016 & Crl.MP.Nos.1024/2016 and 2874/2017
[Video Conferencing]
Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Kasthuri
2.Minor Kirubashalini
3.Minor Prasanna ... Respondents
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
set aside the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.39/2015 dated 15.10.2015 on the
file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in confirming the order passed
in M.C.No.2/2013 dated 30.03.2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Attur.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ambigapathi
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
ORDER
(1) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., questioning
the order in Crl.RC.No.39/2015 passed by the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Salem dated 15.10.2015, which had been
preferred against the judgment in MC.No.2/2013 dated 30.03.2015
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur.
(2) The petitioner was the respondent in the Maintenance Case. He is the
husband of the 1st respondent herein.
(3) The 1st respondent herein had occasion to approach the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking
maintenance for herself, which as a matter of right, she can claim in
her capacity as wife and also for her then minor daughter who was
then aged 14 years and her minor son, who was then aged 12 years.
(4) The Maintenance Case was filed in the year 2013. It went through its
normal course of trial and finally, a judgment was passed on
30.03.2015, wherein, on analysis of the evidence and the relative
position in which the parties were situated, the learned Magistrate had
thought that it would be apt and just if the petitioner herein was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the 1st respondent/wife
every month, a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent/daughter till
she is married and a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the 3rd respondent/son till he
attains the age of majority.
(5) This judgment and the directions therein, were questioned by the
petitioner herein by filing Crl.RC.No.39/2015 which came up for
consideration before the learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Salem, who vide order dated 15.10.2015, refused to revisit the
amounts mentioned and dismissed the Revision Case.
(6) It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner is now before this
Court.
(7) The matter has been pending before this Court for the past five years.
In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has attained the age of majority.
There has been directions given to both the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents that statements
should be given as to the amounts actually paid pursuant to the
judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur, which has
been confirmed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
Judge, Salem. Statements have been given. But, there appears to be
material differences between the two and therefore, I would not place
reliance on either one of the two statements.
(8) The facts are simple. On and from 01.04.2015, the petitioner herein
is under an obligation to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to his
wife/1st respondent herein, a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to his
daughter/2nd respondent herein till she is married and a sum of
Rs.4,000/- per month to his son/3rd respondent herein, till he attains
the age of majority.
(9) The son has now attained the age of majority. If Rs.4,000/- every
month had not been paid and if there are arrears either, the 1 st
respondent in her capacity as mother and guardian of the 3 rd
respondent/son or the 3rd respondent/son, since he has attained the age
of majority, may take suitable action in accordance with law to
recover the arrears.
(10) Similarly, the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent herein, if there are
arrears payable to them, may also initiate necessary action in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
accordance with law.
(11) I am not inclined to interfere with the order, but I would rather place
reliance on an interim order passed by this Court wherein, the
petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month in
total towards maintenance. This would indicate that the petitioner
should pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to his wife and a sum of Rs.4,500/- to
his daughter/2nd respondent per month, till the 2nd respondent is
married.
(12) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner can be
directed to pay the said sum and also stated that he would prevail
upon the petitioner to pay the said amount.
(13) In view of all these facts, the following directions are given:-
(a) Both the orders under Revision are not disturbed.
(b) However, in view of the earlier order/direction of this
Court, the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.7,500/-
[Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only] every month,
namely, Rs.3,000/- to his wife / 1 st respondent herein and
Rs.4,500/- to his daughter/2 nd respondent herein from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
date of the interim order, namely, 01.02.2016 made in
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016 & Crl.MP.Nos.1024 & 1025/2016.
(c) The amount of Rs.4,500/- per month is to be paid to the 2nd
respondent/daughter till she is married.
(d) The petitioner had an obligation to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- every month to his son/3 rd respondent herein till
he attains majority and if there is any default, the 3 rd
respondent/son is at liberty to approach the Court in
manner known to law.
(e) The 1st and 2nd respondents are also at liberty to approach
the Court in manner known to law if there is any default in
payment of maintenance amount to them.
(14) With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
29.10.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
To
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
Crl.OP.No.2056/2016
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
