Madras High Court
Arokiya Doss Simon vs P.Mary Pramila on 1 December, 2023
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.R.C.No.811 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.R.C.No.811 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.No.5685 of 2020
Arokiya Doss Simon ... Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent
-Vs-
1.P.Mary Pramila
2.Merlin Jones (Minor Aged 12 years)
Rep. by her mother and natural guardian
Both residing at No.756, Block No.136,
T.P.C. Main Road, Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai – 600 030. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Petitioners
Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Cr.P.C, to call for records in M.P.No.218 of 2019 in M.C.No.548 of 2010
on the file of the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chennai and to examine the same and to set aside the order passed in
M.P.No.218 of 2019 on 17.02.2020 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
for Mrs.K.Malathi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.R.C.No.811 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order passed by
the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in
M.P.No.218 of 2019 in M.C.No.548 of 2010 dated 17.02.2020.
2. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that on the
earlier occasion, when the case came up for hearing, he offered to settle the
retirement benefits of Rs.14,67,382/-. At that time, the learned Counsel for
the Respondents/wife also present in Court accepted the likelihood of
settlement. Therefore the case was adjourned from 24.11.2023 to
01.12.2023, expecting for an amicable settlement.
3. Today, 01.12.2023, when the case came up for hearing, the
learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the wife is not
amenable to this offer of Rs.9,00,000/-, as Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/-
= Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore, he wanted to proceed with the argument.
4. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/husband submitted
that he joined the service in the Heavy Vehicle Factory at Avadi, at the age
of 19. After the marriage, the wife refused to live with him on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he was partially blind, and she did not want to take care of the mother of
the Petitioner, who was a cancer patient.
5. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision
Petitioner/husband that, after delivery of the child, the wife did not come
and join the matrimonial home. The husband filed Petition for restitution
of conjugal rights, for which also she did not file any counter.
Subsequently, the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn.
Instead, the husband filed H.M.O.P.No.173 of 2013 on the file of the
learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
6. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention
of this Court to the evidence in H.M.O.P.No.173 of 2013, wherein the
wife, as Respondent Witness, R.W-1, was cross-examined by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.173 of 2013, the husband, in
which she had admitted the suggestions of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that she refused to come and joined him. She admitted that the
husband was partially blind, and the mother of the husband was cancer
patient. She also admitted in the cross-examination that the husband got
employment in the Heavy Vehicle Factory on compassionate ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. To the pointed question by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
in H.M.O.P.No.173 of 2013, whether she had filed counter in the earlier
Petition filed by the husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She
claimed ignorance. Regarding the steps taken by her to join the
matrimonial home, she had stated that she approached the church
authorities, where they counselled the husband to take her home, but he did
not come and invite her.
8. To the pointed question of whether she had gone on her own
volition from the house of the husband. She had stated that she went to her
husband's house, and it was locked. On enquiry, she came to know that her
husband had gone to his mother's home.
9. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner also invited the
attention of this Court that the wife was cross-examined as R.W-1 before
the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, on
06.10.2020. During the course of cross-examination, she had stated that
she was always willing to join her husband. He was refusing to take her
back. At that time, R.W-1 was in the cross-examination part-heard stage.
The learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directed both parties to join in the matrimony, and the case was adjourned
for reporting settlement. Even after such adjournment, the wife refused to
join the matrimonial home. Therefore, once again, the case was taken up
for cross-examination of R.W-1. The learned III Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Chennai, on 16.03.2022, in further cross-
examination, the contention put forth by the husband as Petitioner in
H.M.O.P.No.173 of 2013 was put to her in cross-examination. Based on
her evidence in cross-examination, the learned III Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Chennai, had granted decree of divorce in favour of
the husband/Petitioner in H.M.O.P as per judgment dated 10.08.2022.
10. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the
Revision Petitioner that, as per his service records, he had not removed the
name of the wife as nominee for receiving pension and all his service
benefits. He had furnished the service certificate along with the details of
his retirement on medical grounds.
11. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision
Petitioner/husband that the husband retired from service on 01.09.2023, as
he lost 90% of his vision, which cannot be retained by medical treatment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Since he had been granted employment on compassionate ground, he has
to take care of the entire family in place of his father. Therefore, he had
built the house for which he had to pay EMI (Equated Monthly Instalment)
and take care of his aged widowed mother, who is a cancer patient.
12. From the additional typed set furnished by the learned Counsel
for the Revision Petitioner, it is found that he is working as a Supervisor
(non-technical). At the time of retirement, he was earning Rs.37,500 per
month. The lump sum amount payable is Rs.15,41,295/-. After deduction,
it is Rs.14,67,382/-. Retiring Pension is Rs.18,750/- with effect from
02.09.2023. The spouse details had been furnished to the employer.
Spouse name: P.Mary Pramila, marital status: divorcee.
Retiring Pension Rs.18,750/-
Commuted Retiring Pension Rs.7,500/-
Residual Retiring Pension Rs.11,250/-
Commutation Amount 40% Rs.8,02,170/-
Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Revision Petitioner that he is ready to give one-time settlement of Rs.8
lakhs and odd, out of Rs.14,67,382/-, and it is further submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.9,00,000/- as total, out of which Rs.3,00,000/- for the wife and
Rs.6,00,000/- towards the child, daughter, as a deposit till she attains the
age of majority.
13. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submitted
that he was not allowed to meet the child. The child refused to call him his
father. Still, he is ready to give one-time settlement of Rs.9,00,000/-.
Rs.3,00,000/- to his wife and Rs.6,00,000/- as deposit in the name of the
child.
14. Learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently objected to the
line of argument of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, stating
that the Revision Petitioner was adamant about not taking her to the
matrimonial home. When she filed the case for maintenance, he had
refused since she filed enhancement. He had decided to come out of
voluntary retirement.
15. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents
that he has afforded to voluntarily retire. The employer had not attracted
him to go for retirement on medical grounds. It is his decision only to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evade payment to the wife. This Revision lacks merit and is to be
dismissed.
16. To the pointed query of the learned Counsel for the
Respondents/wife that whether she had filed any Appeal against decree of
divorce granted to the husband. The learned Counsel for the
Respondents/wife submitted that he had already filed Appeal, for which
the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that, till date, the
husband has not received any notice from the Hon'ble High Court
regarding Appeal against grant of divorce.
17. Point for consideration:
Whether the Criminal Revision Case is to be
allowed?
18. Perused the typed set and additional typed set of the Revision
Petitioner.
19. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and
learned Counsel for the Respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel for
the Revision Petitioner regarding the retirement benefits as per PPO
(Pension Payment Order) published by employer, Heavy Vehicle Factory,
Avadi, to the Petitioner herein, and the evidence of the wife in H.M.O.P
before the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai,
the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is found
acceptable since he had lost 90% of his vision. He had offered to retire on
medical grounds.
21. During the course of the argument, this Court had raised a query
with the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that even though he
had obtained decree of divorce against his wife, she continued in the
service records. Whether he has any objection in ordering monthly pension
or part of the pension for the wife. He claims that he can offer only a
meagre amount or part of pension. Also, the query raised by this Court
regarding medical expenses. Since he is employed at Heavy Vehicle
Factory with more than 26 years of service. He joined service at the age of
20. Now, he is 47 years old. He is likely to continue to get the benefit of
the Central Government Scheme for himself or his family towards his aged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mother, who is a cancer patient.
22. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that
he is likely to get the same benefits even after retirement. Considering the
development after filing of this Criminal Revision Case, the offer of the
learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner towards Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees
Nine Lakhs Only) is found reasonable, and therefore, the point for
consideration is answered in favour of the Revision Petitioner and against
the Respondents in the light of the above offer of the learned Counsel for
the Revision Petitioner. The Revision Petitioner is ordered to deposit
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) towards his wife on the file
of the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai,
in M.P.No.218 of 2019 in M.C.No.548 of 2010. Also, he was ordered to
deposit Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) towards his child on the
file of the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chennai, in M.P.No.218 of 2019 in M.C.No.548 of 2010.
23. Both the amount shall be deposited within a reasonable periof of
three months from the date of this order. The learned III Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, is directed to deposit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) in the name of the
minor child, daughter namely (Merline Jones). Subsequently, till the
minor attains age of majority. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)
may be permitted to be withdrawn by the wife, the Petitioner in
M.P.No.218 of 2019 in M.C.No.548 of 2010.
24. Since the Revision Petitioner had not removed the name of the
wife from the service records and enabled the wife to receive pension after
his life time till such as a token gesture. He is directed to pay Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees Thousand Only) to the wife during his life time.
25. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.12.2023
cda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,
cda
To
1.The III Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Records,
High Court, Chennai.
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
