Madras High Court
D.Purushothaman vs Shobana on 1 July, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
D.Purushothaman ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Shobana
2. P.Sharvesh ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C,
to set aside the order, dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee in M.C.No.17 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayarachaven
For Respondent : Mrs.K.Balagayathri
ORDER
This Revision Case is filed against the order of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, dated 15.12.2020 in M.C.No.17 of 2018,
in and by which, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a
sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the first respondent, who is the wife of the
petitioner and Rs.10,000/- per month to the second respondent, who is the
son of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
2. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the monthly
earning of the petitioner, which has been reported to be about Rs.60,000/-
per month, had ordered the above said sum. The relationship is admitted
by the parties. The proceedings, relating to the divorce, are pending
between the parties. Under these circumstances, considering the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita
Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy1, wherein, it has been held that it would be
appropriate to grant about 25% of the income of the husband as
maintenance and since it is Rs.15,000/- per month, I am of the view that
the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. Even though the learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that majority of the arrears have been
paid, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there are still
some arrears.
3. Even though it is mentioned by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is willing to settle the issue by way of
permanent solution, the learned Counsel for the respondents would bring to
the notice of this Court that the parties are not arriving at any settlement.
In that view of the matter, no further steps could be taken up by this Court,
1 (2017) 14 SCC 200
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
but, direct the parties to approach the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, in which,
the divorce proceedings are pending.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent seeks permission to
withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of the above mentioned
Maintenance Case by way of fixed deposit, pursuant to the interim order of
this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the
respondents to withdraw the said amount. Therefore, they are permitted to
withdraw the said amount without any formal application. Once a memo,
along with the copy of the order is filed by the respondents, the Trial Court
may call for the amount and order payment, by issuing a cheque or by
NEFT transfer etc., to the account of the respondents.
5. In that view of the matter, finding no grounds to interfere with the
order of the Trial Court, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.3982 of 2022 is closed.
01.07.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking order
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonamallee.
Crl.R.C.No.394 of 2022
01.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
