Madras High Court
S.Maragatham vs N.Chandran on 2 December, 2022
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
S.Maragatham ... petitioner
Vs.
N.Chandran ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order dated 28.02.2020 made in
MC.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari and
to set aside the same by enhancing the maintenance amount as prayed for in
MC.No.5 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Ms.Adhisree
for Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
ORDER
This criminal revision is filed as against the judgment passed in
MC.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sankari dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
28.02.2020, thereby ordered monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- in favour of
the petitioner.
2. The petitioner got married the respondent on 12.12.1986. Due to
their wedlock, they gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, due to
misunderstanding, the petitioner and her daughter were driven out from the
matrimonial house since the respondent was having illicit intimacy with
another lady. The respondent assaulted the petitioner on several occasions when
the petitioner questioned about his illicit intimacy with another lady. The
respondent is a laywer. Thereafter the petitioner was driven out along with her
daughter from the matrimonial home. The respondent did not even spend a
single paise for her educational expenditure and their family expenditures.
Therefore the petitioner could not able to maintain herself and filed petition for
maintenance.
3. In support of her case, she examined PW1 to PW3 and marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On the side of the respondent , he had examined RW1 to RW4
and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R11. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence,
the trial court ordered to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
of the order. The petitioner filed this petition for enhancement of the monthly
maintenance.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent is a practicing advocate and he completed more than 30 years of
service. Therefore, he is capable of earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. That
apart, even after the order passed by the trial court, the respondent did not even
pay a single paise. Even then, without considering the above facts and
circumstances of the case, the trial court awarded only a meagre amount of
Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the respondent marked Ex.R10 to Ex.R11 in support of his case. The
petitioner is a partner in a transport business and she is having very good
income and she can able to maintain herself all alone. Even after separation, she
did not choose to file any petition for maintenance till 2014. Only in the year
2014, she filed petition for maintenance, that too after seven years from their
separation. When the petitioner was able to maintain herself in the initial stage,
it shows that she is having permanent income. The respondent completed his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
law degree and he is not practising and he is under financial crisis. He relied
upon Ex.R1- to Ex.R11 including statement of accounts of the petitioner and
submitted that before filing maintenance petition, she had withdrawn
Rs.25,00,000/- from the account and she also had fixed deposits in her name.
Therefore, the court below rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per
month.
6. Heard, Ms.Adhisree, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.
S.Kalyanaraman, the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Admittedly the petitioner got married the respondent on
12.12.1986 and gave birth to a female child on 21.10.1987. The respondent is a
practicing advocate. Now the daughter is aged about 30 years. However, the
petitioner could not able to maintain herself and filed petition for maintenance
in the year 2014. Unfortunately, the trial court disposed of the maintenance case
only in the year 2020 by order dated 28.02.2020. The trial court also ordered
maintenance only from the date of the order. Even then, the respondent did not
even pay any single paise as maintenance to the petitioner. Though the
respondent contended that the petitioner is a partner of a transport busienss and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
the respondent failed to produce any single peice of evidence to substantiate the
same. That apart, the petitioner was driven out from matrimonial home and she
is living separately. Therefore a sum of Rs.3,000/- is very meage and very low.
Further, the respondent is a practising advocate. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to enhance the monthly maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.
8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the monthly
maintenance awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari in
MC.No.5 of 2014 dated 28.02.2020 is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the respondent from the date of the
order passed by the trial court. The respondent is directed to settle the arrears of
monthly maintenance within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. The petitioner is also at liberty to file an appropriate
petition to execute the order of maintenance.
02.12.2022
Speaking/non-speaking
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Sankari
Crl.RC.No.475 of 2020
02.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
