Madras High Court
Johnson vs Grasi Milka on 21 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
Johnson ... Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.Grasi Milka
2.Minor.Joesper Jayal ... Respondents/Petitioners
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(3) and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi in M.C.No.2 of 2017 and
set aside the Judgment, dated 31.08.2017 by allowing this Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
ORDER
The revision has been filed as against the order of
maintenance in M.C.No.2 of 2017, dated 31.08.2017, on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, thereby ordering
monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- in favour of the first respondent
and a sum of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the second respondent.
2.The petitioner got married the first respondent on
05.05.2014. Due to their wedlock, they gave birth to the second
respondent herein. Due to dowry demand and cruelty committed by
the petitioner, the respondents were driven out from the
matrimonial home. The respondents lived in their parents' house.
They could not able to maintain themselves. Therefore, the
respondents filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.02 of 2017 under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Sivakasi.
3. In order to prove their case, the respondents had
examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and on the
side of the petitioner, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and no
documents were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court allowed the petition ordering monthly maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- in favour of the first respondent and a sum of Rs.1,000/-
in favour of the second respondent payable by the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the same, the present revision.
5.There is no representation for the petitioner.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7.On perusal of the records revealed that the petitioner
himself admitted that he was working in the private concern, and he
was drawing a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month in the year 2015.
Therefore, the Court below rightly ordered maintenance to the
respondents, payable by the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner did
not even pay any single paise till today. Therefore, this Court finds
no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
respondents are at liberty to execute the order of maintenance in
the manner known to law. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case
is dismissed.
21.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Sivakasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.867 of 2017
21.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
