Madras High Court
Famel Beula vs A.Jack Clement @ Joel on 8 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
Famel Beula,
W/o.A.Jack Clement @ Joel ... Petitioner
Versus
A.Jack Clement @ Joel,
S/o.Adaikalaraj ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the Judgment dated 10.12.2018 of the
learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.9 of 2016 against the
judgment dated 30.10.2014 of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai in C.C.No.3495 of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the
learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.9 of 2016, in and by
which, the learned Sessions Judge, interfered with the order of the learned II
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai ordering a monthly maintenance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2.The Lower Appellate Court, considering the fact that the petitioner/wife
and the respondent/husband were separated from the year 1999 itself and even
the Domestic Violence Act come into force in the year 2005 and considering the
separation of the parties for a long period, held that the Domestic Violence Act,
2005 cannot be made as a substitute for claiming maintenance as the
maintenance in M.C.No.535 of 2005 filed by the petitioner/wife had already
been dismissed for default.
3.In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken for the findings of
the Lower Appellate Court. But, however, it is to be seen that the
respondent/husband is not appearing before this Court and it is said that the
case for bigamy filed by the petitioner/wife is pending before the Additional
Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and even before the said Court, the
respondent/husband is not appearing and a warrant is pending.
4.Be that as it may, it is seen from the records that by an order dated
14.12.2015 while condoning the delay of the respondent in filing the appeal, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
was directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the credit of the Trial Court in
C.C.No.3495 of 2013. The said amount was not specifically directed as a part of
the maintenance amount.
5.In that view of the matter, it can be seen that the said amount is
imposed as costs. Therefore, the said amount is lying to the credit of the
C.C.No.3495 of 2013 and the same can be ordered to be paid out to the
petitioner herein.
6.In view of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the Criminal Revision
Case with the following terms :-
(i) the order of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai dated 10.12.2018 in Crl.A.No.9 of 2016 is upheld in
as much as interfered with the monthly maintenance ordered to
the petitioner. However, the order is held to be erroneous in as
much as it did not pass any consequential order on the amount
of Rs.60,000/- deposited to the credit of C.C.No.3495 of 2013
and;
(ii) it is further ordered that the said sum of Rs.60,000/-
along with accrued interest, if any, shall be paid out to the
petitioner without insisting on any formal application and upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
filing a memo on behalf of the petitioner/wife along with the
proper Identity card and upon being identified by the learned
counsel before the Trial Court.
08.08.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sp
To
1.The V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2.The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
sp
Crl.R.C.No.362 of 2019
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
