Madras High Court
S.Abuthahir : Revision vs A.Shameembanu on 10 November, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10/11/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.392 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4049 of 2021
S.Abuthahir : Revision Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.A.Shameembanu
2.A.Shahir Uvaiz
3.Minor A.Mohamed Sohail Lutif
(The minor 2nd 3rd respondents
represented through their
Mother/Natural Guardian
1st Respondent) : Respondent/Petitioners
Prayer:Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397
r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the
records in M.C No.35 of 2018 on the file of the Family
Judge, Trichurappalli and to set aside the order passed in
MC No.35 of 2018, dated 12/03/2021 and to pass any such
further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been preferred seeking
to set aside the order, dated 12/03/2021 made in M.C No.35
of 2018 on the file of the Family Judge, Trichy.
2.The facts in brief:-
It is a matrimonial issue between the husband and
wife. The marriage between the husband and wife was
performed in 2002. Because of the marriage, two children
born to them. After the marriage, they were living
together. During the above said matrimonial life, the wife
was assaulted physically, when she used to come to the home
in late night. Whenever, the husband questioned the same,
she was assaulted by him. At the intervention of the
Jamath, the children and the wife were taken to the
parental home and the children were also admitted in the
school. On 09/01/2018, the wife went to the house of the
husband and requested him to make provision for their life.
At that time, she was chased away. Over the above said
occurrence, on 10/01/2018, she has also lodged a complaint
in Trichy K.K. Nagar Police Station. Seeking maintenance
amount of Rs.25,000/- for herself and the children and
apart from Rs.25,000/- towards educational and other
expenses, the above said petition was filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.That petition was resisted by the husband stating
that mutalaq pleaded by the wife is not correct; The wife
wants to maintain her parents and for that, the husband
expressed his inability; But however, the wife was
insisting upon the above said care; Before the Jamath, the
wife expressed his unwillingness to live together with her
husband; The complaint given by the wife before the Trichy
K.K Nagar police station came to be closed as false;
Because of the above said false complaint, the husband was
in prison for about 10 days and the wife was also refused
to hand over the children; More-over, she is owning
properties and by renting out the same, she is earning to
the tune of Rs.45,000/- per month; She only voluntarily
deserved the husband.
4.At the conclusion of the enquiry, the trial
court came to the conclusion that no step was taken by the
husband for retaking the wife and the children. On the
basis of the complaint given by the wife, it was decided
that the desertion pleaded by the husband is not true.
Regarding the income, it was found that the husband, after
completing his B.E Engineering was working abroad for some
time. He returned to India in 2014 and looking after the
construction business. No income particulars have been
produced by him. So, an approximate income of Rs.30,000/-
was taken. On that basis, the maintenance amount of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.5,000/- each to the
children till they attained majority was ordered.
5.Challenging the same, this revision has been
preferred by the husband.
6.Heard both sides.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/husband would submit that the factum of
desertion was not properly considered by the trial court
and no effort for reunion was also made by the wife; The
evidence was also given by her before the Magistrate court
was also been relied. It is also further submitted that no
document has been produced by the wife to show the monthly
income of the husband and the second respondent has now
attained majority.
8.Per contra, it has been submitted by the wife to
the effect after passing the above said order, not even a
single penny has been paid by the husband.
9.Against the passed in O.S No.4 of 2020, CMA has
also been filed. O.S.No.41 of 2020 was filed by the wife
for declaration that the marriage between them is null and
void. But the other particulars with regard to the above
said judgment is not available.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.Now whatever it may be, from the order that has
been passed by the trial court, it is seen that right from
2017, they are living separately and before the Jamath,
some talk was undertaken. On what basis, the suit in O.S
No.4 of 2020 was preferred is not clear on record. But the
Maintenance Case has been filed in 2018 itself. The above
said case was filed only in 2019. It appears that during
the pendency of the above said maintenance proceedings, the
order of divorce has been passed.
11.But reading of the evidence given by the wife
shows that it is admitted on the part of the wife that in
2007, her husband is in abroad. In 2009, the wife also went
abroad during vacation. After the marriage of the brother
of the husband, a separate house was arranged and later, in
2013, a house was constructed. From 2005 onwards, both
were living separately. In 2013, the husband permanently
came to India. In May 2017, the husband pronounced talque.
In the Jamath, the husband refused for re-union. So the
wife received the jewels and other sreedhana articles and
it was suggested to her that effort was made by the husband
for reunion, only the wife refused. On 10/01/2018, a police
complaint was given and the husband was arrested and
remanded to custody and later, released on bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.It has been stated that in the above said
criminal case, the husband was acquitted. The entire
evidence shows that even though, there was no trouble
between them till 2007, later trouble has arisen between
them, over which a police complaint has also been given.
Because of the arrest and judicial custody, it has widened.
There is no chance for reunion between them, more so, in
the light of the suit filed by the wife.
13.Now whatever, it may be the position, it is the
duty of the husband to maintain the wife and children. Even
though, it has been stated that he is ready to retake the
children and maintain them, no effort was made so far.
Regarding his income, Rs.30,000/- has been taken into
account approximately, considering the educational
qualification and the business, the above said amount has
been taken into consideration, which cannot be considered
to be, either excessive.
14.Considering the educational qualification of
the husband and the business of the husband, the order of
payment of maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the wife
and Rs.5,000/- each to the children cannot be considered to
be excessive. Now the second respondent has also attained
majority. Till that time, the husband has to pay the money.
But that was not paid till that period. So the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent is entitled to get the maintenance amount by
filing a petition for execution of the order.
15.In the light of the above said circumstances, I
find that no valid ground is made out by the revision
petitioner to entertain this revision.
16.In the result, this criminal revision fails and
the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10/11/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
The Family Judge,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.392 of 2021
10/11/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
