Madras High Court
Sellakannu @ Thatchanamoorthy vs Arulselvi on 13 September, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.3492 of 2022
Sellakannu @ Thatchanamoorthy ...Petitioner
..vs..
1.Arulselvi
2.Haripriyan
3.Kessorprakash
4.Minor Aktheerasri
5.Minor Iswariya
Minors 4 & 5 are represented by
their mother and natural guardian
Arulselvi ... Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C to
set aside the order dated 06.01.2021 made in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019 on the
file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem in partly modifying the
judgment dated 25.07.2017 in M.C.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
Magistrate Court No.1, Attur and to allow the above revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.G.Purusothaman
ORDER
This revision has been preferred challenging the judgment dated
06.01.2021 made in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019 by the learned III Additional
District Judge, Salem.
2. The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and
father of the respondents 2 to 4. Originally, the respondents herein filed a
maintenance case in M.C.No.2 of 2017 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Attur. After trial, the trial Court by an order dated
25.07.2017, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per
month to the first respondent and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the
second respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents 3 to 5 till they
attain majority. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner preferred
an appeal in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019 before the learned III Additional
District Judge, Salem. The learned Appellate Judge partly allowed the
appeal and set aside the maintenance order passed in favour of the
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
respondents 1 and 2 herein and confirmed the order in favour of the
respondents 3 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the
present revision petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the
wife was leading adulterous life and on that ground, the Appellate Court
allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate
as regards the maintenance ordered in favour of the first petitioner/wife.
The petitioner has lost his job and he does not have any independent
source of income to maintain himself and if that be the situation, the
petitioner cannot maintain his children. Further, out of four children, two
children have already attained majority. Both the trial Court and the
Appellate Court failed to consider that a person who is not able to
maintain himself with sufficient means, could not maintain his wife and the
children.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
revision petitioner has not proved that the mother of the children leads
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
adulterous and that she was driven from her matrimonial home along with
the children and now she is residing with her children. In order to pay
maintenance amount, the petitioner has taken such a false allegation.
Though the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the entire materials
and ordered maintenance, however, the Appellate Court, without
considering the fact that the petitioner has not established that first
respondent/wife is leading adulterous life, modified the order passed by
the trial Court. He further submitted that the respondent/wife does not
know about the order of the appellate Court and hence, she has not
challenged the same.
5. Admittedly, the relationship between that parties is not in dispute
and paternity of the children is also not in dispute and now both the
petitioner and respondents are living separately and the same is also not in
dispute. Though the revision petitioner has stated that he has no sufficient
means to maintain himself and therefore, he is not liable to maintain his
wife and children, both the Courts below failed to consider that even the
petitioner himself is supported by his own mother.
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision petitioner
has not produced any materials to prove his financial capacity and hence,
the trial Court has rightly allowed the petition and ordered maintenance to
the respondents herein. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Judge set aside
the order passed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. However, the first
respondent has not challenged the judgment of the Appellate Court.
7.It seems that all the children are minors at the time of filing the
maintenance case. Subsequently, two of the children attained majority, but
they are continuing their studies. But, the petitioner has not produced any
material to show that the major children are settled in their life and they
are able to maintain themselves
8. When once the petition is filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C at that
time when the children are minors, the parents are liable to maintain their
children till they attain majority and they are able to lead their life
independently. Further, Section 125 Cr.P.C is a beneficiary Legislation and
therefore, while pending proceedings, if the children continue their
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
education, the parents are liable to maintain their children even if they
attain majority, till they complete their education.
9.In the case on hand, the petitioner has not proved his financial
status that he is unable to maintain himself and hence, he is not liable to
maintain his wife and children.
10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
does not find any perversity or irregularity in the order passed by the
Appellate Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits
and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision
Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
13.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
ms
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
To
1. The III Additional District Judge,
Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Attur.
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
Crl.R.C.No.331 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.3492 of 2022
13.09.2022
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
