Madras High Court
S. Murugaraja vs Parvathy @ Episha on 21 September, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
and Crl.MP(MD)No.2874 of 2020
S. Murugaraja
... Petitioner
Vs
Parvathy @ Episha,
W/o. S.Murugaraj, Ponnammalpatti,
Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the order dated 20/02/2017 made in M.C.No.02
of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Kaliraj
For Respondent : Mr.A.Muralikumar
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the
impugned order, dated 20/02/2017, in M.C.No.02 of 2012, on the file of the
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.
2.The facts in brief:
(i)The marriage between the petitioner/husband and
respondent/wife took place on 03.06.2011, as per their customary rites. After
their marriage, they were residing in a joint family. For about 33 days only the
respondent lived with the petitioner. During that time, he received 30
sovereigns of jewels from the respondent, for the purpose of purchasing house
in Coimbatore. The salary of the petitioner was not handed over to the
respondent, but the same was handed over to the wife of petitioner's brother,
over which, dispute arose between them. On 28.10.2011, the respondent lodged
a complaint, before the Superintendent of Police, Theni. During the enquiry, the
petitioner promised to sever the relationship with his brother's wife and arrange
a separate house in Coimbatore. But he failed to do so. Though the petitioner
earned Rs.20,000/- per month, as a Government Servant and also income from
the coconut groove, he is not maintaining the respondent properly. Hence, the
respondent filed a petition seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
resisted by the petitioner stating that the respondent is not willing to live with
the petitioner and she is having contact with very many persons and the
petitioner has to maintain his old aged parents, apart from that, he is not having
any source of income.
(ii)At the conclusion of enquiry, the trial Court found that the
respondent is having sufficient means to maintain his wife and ordered to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance, from the date of petition.
3.Challenging the same, this revision has been preferred by the
petitioner on the ground that there was wilful desertion on the part of the
respondent. Therefore, he filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.192 of
2012, before Sub Court, Theni. By suppressing the above facts, the respondent
has filed the petition for maintenance. The respondent is running a Paramedical
College and having sufficient income and therefore, she is not entitled for any
maintenance. However, considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has
passed the above said order.
4.Perusal of records shows that the contention on the part of
revision petitioner that the respondent has received Rs.1 lakh, even at the time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
of making compromise in the previous complaint was false. Similarly, the
ground that the respondent is running a Paramedical College and earning
sufficient income was also rejected by the trial Court. During the course of
evidence, the petitioner himself admitted that he was earning more than
Rs.29,000/-, as monthly salary, on the date of examination before the trial Court.
Having admitted that he is receiving more than Rs.29,000/-, he failed to pay the
maintenance amount.
5.It is further seen that repeated applications have been filed by the
respondent for enforcement of the said order. At one point of time, attachment
of salary was also ordered. Calculation memo is filed by the respondent to
show the balance amount of maintenance. Whether the above said attachment is
still in force or not is not clear on record. Perusal of calculation memo shows
that totally Rs.9,20,000/- remains to be paid by the petitioner. As I mentioned
earlier, after attachment of salary, how much amount was attached and how
much amount was received by the respondent is not clear on record. Whatever
it may be, those facts and circumstances cannot be gone into now, unless if there
is any material irregularity or illegality in the order, this Court cannot interfere.
6.Even though the matter was referred to Mediation for conciliation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
process, it could not be finalised and the matter was referred back to Court.
Considering the above facts, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere
with the order passed by the trial Court.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent, relied upon the Judgment
of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in
2017(3) CTC 209, for the purpose of argument that only 25% of net salary of
the husband can be spared for maintenance. As I mentioned earlier, the
petitioner himself admitted, at the time of evidence, that he is working as a
Constable, in Central Security Force and he is earning more than Rs.29,000/-
per month, and 1/3 of the salary amount was ordered as maintenance. So this
cannot be considered as excessive amount, considering the cost of living in the
present day. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order
passed by the trial Court and this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, this revision case stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.09.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
PNM
ORDER IN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.343 of 2020
and Crl.MP(MD)No.2874 of 2020
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
