Eswaramoorthy vs Yamuna Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 19392 Mad

                                                       Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                         DATED : 22.09.2021
                                CORAM:

      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                       Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

1.Eswaramoorthy
2.Devayal                            ... Petitioners/Accused
                                  Vs.
1.Yamuna Devi
2.Minor Koushik,
  Natural guardian and mother
  D/o.Yamunadevi                     ... Respondents/Complainants

PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in C.A.No. 45 of 2017,
dated 22.06.2017, confirming the judgment passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, Erode District in Crl.M.P.No.4666 of 2009
dated 03.12.2016.
            For Petitioners : Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy
            For Respondents : Mr.K.Sudhakar
                            ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused to

set aside the order passed by the learned III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Erode, in C.A.No. 45 of 2017, dated 22.06.2017.

Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

2(a).The first respondent is the wife of the first revision

petitioner, has filed Crl.M.P.No.4666 of 2009, before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, Erode District, for the offences under

Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, seeking

compensation for Domestic Violence and for maintenance for herself and

for the minor child viz., Koushik.

2(b).The learned Judge, by an order dated 03.12.2016, at

paragraph No.12 has held that the defence theory that the first

complainant viz., Yamunadevi is living in illegal relationship with one

Thangamuthu, is appears to be more probable based upon Exs. R1 to

R12. Infact, the evidence of RW2/Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women

Police Station, Sathiyamangalam, it is stated that the complaint was

given by the legally wedded wife of said Thangamuthu and the

complainant herein is living adultry and hence, the Trial Court has

rejected for the maintenance of wife, however granted maintenance for a

sum of Rs.4,000/- per month in respect of the minor child.

Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

2(c).Aggrieved against the same, the complainant/Yamuna

Devi has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2017, before the learned

III Additional District Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, wherein, the

learned Judge has enhanced the maintenance in respect of the minor to

Rs.6,000/- from Rs.4,000/- and rejected the maintenance in respect of

wife.

2(d).Aggrieved against the same, the accused have preferred

the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

3.Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials

placed on record.

4.On a perusal of the records, it is stated in the complaint that

the marriage was solemnized between the first revision petitioner herein

and the first respondent herein on 13.06.2002 at Meenaksi

Thirumanamandapam, Sathyamangalam, Erode District. At the time of

marriage, the first respondent's family provide Sridhana of 15

sovereigns of gold articles and other sridhana properties also given

Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

towards to the marriage expenses. After marriage the first revision

petitioner and his family members had demanded the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the first respondent's parents. Further, through their

wedlock, one male child was born, who is the second respondent herein,

at that time the first respondent was staying at the revision petitioners'

house.

5.Further, according to the complaint during the matrimonial

life, the revision petitioners and the others were abusing and torturing the

first respondent herein. Thereby, the first respondent herein has given a

complaint before the District Welfare Officer, Erode, dated 12.10.2009

and thereafter, the complaint was sent to the Judicial Magistrate of

Sathyamangalam and the same was numbered in Crl.M.P.No.4666 of

2009 for the offence under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Domestic

Violence Act against the revision petitioners and others. After

conducting the trial, the trial Court had passed an order to pay the

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in respect of the second respondent

herein and rejected the maintenance against the first respondent herein.

Against which, the respondents herein had filed the

Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.45 of 2017, before the learned III Additional

District and Sessions Court of Gopichettipalaya, Erode and the learned

Judge has confirmed the order in respect of the first respondent but in

respect of the second respondent herein, the learned Judge has enahnced

the maintenance to a sum of Rs.6,000/- from Rs.4,000/-.

6.The Courts below have held that the first respondent had illegal

intimacy with one Thangamuthu was probable and hence, maintenance in

respect of the first respondent herein was disallowed and awarded a

maintenance of Rs.6,000/- in respect of the minor child. However, since

the date of birth of the minor child is 04.06.2003 and thereby, he has now

attained majority. Hence, this Court is inclined to modify the order

passed by the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that instead of paying

maintenance of Rs.6000/- in total, the first revision petitioner/father of

the second respondent herein shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of

cash directly to the 2nd respondent herein and in respect of the

remaining sum of Rs.3,000/- the first revision petitioner/father of the

second respondent herein shall pay the educational expenses of second

respondent herein for the every academic year either directly to the

school or to the college as the case may be.

Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

dua

7.With the above modification this Criminal Revision Case stands

partly allowed to the limited extent as indicated above.

8.It is seen that the first revision petitioner herein has been paying

only 50% of the amount awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Sathyamanglaam, viz., Rs.2,000/- (50% of Rs.4,000/-). Even after the

enhancement of the maintenance to Rs.6,000/-, the revision petitioner

herein has been paying only Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance. Therefore,

the same shall be calculated and adjusted accordingly. It is open to

the parties, file a memo of calculation before the Trial Court.

22.09.2021 Index : Yes Internet : Yes dua To:

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

Crl.R.C.No.177 of 2018