Madras High Court
Fareetha vs S.Palanisamy on 28 February, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
Fareetha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. S.Palanisamy
2. The Ordance Factory,
Office Incharge,
AQA (A) DGAQA Ministry of Defence.
Ordnance Factory, Trichy – 16.
3. The Director General,
(South Zone) Office of the ADG,
(South Zone) DGAQA,
HAL Post, Bangalore – 560 017.
4. The Head Quarters,
Office Incharge,
DGAQA, H Block,
DHQ Post, New Delhi – 110 011. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records relating to the impugned Order dated
16.12.2019 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2350/2019 in M.C.No.33 of 2019 on the file of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thiruchirappalli and set aside the same and
allow the present Criminal Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Boopal
For R1 : Mr.S.Vinayak
For R2 to R4 : Mr.K.Prabha
Central Govt Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, against the impugned
Order dated 16.12.2019 passed in Cr.M.P.No.2350/2019 in M.C.No.33 of 2019
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thiruchirappalli, thereby, dismissing
the petition seeking attachment of Rs.15 lakhs, being the retirement benefit of
the first respondent herein.
2.The petitioner got married to the first respondent on 05.11.2013. Due
to the wedlock, one female child and one male child were born to them.
Thereafter, they got separated due to their misunderstandings. However, the
petitioner along with her son and daughter living in the quarters allotted to the
first respondent herein. The first respondent was working as a Charge
Man(Grade I), at the Ordnance Factory, Trichy. While pending the maintenance
case, the petitioner filed petition under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., to attach the
retirement benefits to be received by the first respondent since the first
respondent superannuation is in the month of December 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
3.It is relevant to extract the portion of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
“Section 125(3): If any person so Ordered fails without
sufficient cause to comply with the Order, any such Magistrate
may, for every breach of the Order, issue a warrant for levying
the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and
may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each
month’s [allowance for the maintenance or the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,]
remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or
until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of
any amount due under this section unless application be made
to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year
from the date on which it became due
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife
on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live
with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of
refusal stated by her, and may make an Order under this
section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there
is just ground for so doing.”
From the above, the provision under Section 125(3)Cr.P.C., can be invoked only
after the Order of maintenance and as such this petition is not maintainable at
this stage. It can be invoked only after the Order of maintenance and thereafter
if the husband failed to comply with the Order of maintenance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
4.That apart, the first respondent is looking after his son and daughter,
during their college studies and in fact they are residing in the quarters allotted
in favour of the first respondent. However, after the superannuation of the first
respondent in the month of December 2019, they are living separately.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
Judgment of this Court reported in 1998 Crl.L.J (5) 3708. In the said Judgment,
this Court dealt with the case of attachment of salary, after the Order of
maintenance. Therefore, the above citation is not applicable to the case on hand.
Now because of this petition filed under section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the second and
third respondents did not disburse the terminal benefits to the first respondent
and the first respondent is also not receiving any pension from the respondents
two and three herein.
6.In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
Order passed by the Court below. The second and third respondents are directed
to disburse the terminal benefits to the first respondent forthwith and directed to
pay monthly pension to the first respondent as per rules. The Court below is
directed to dispose the maintenance case, within six months, from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order. While pending the maintenance case, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only), including all educational expenses of the petitioner's son and
daughter, after receipt of terminal benefits and monthly pension from the
respondents two and three.
7.With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
28.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
PNM
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the Order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the Order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility
of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruchirappalli
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.95 of 2020
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
