Madras High Court
D.Karthick vs Minor D.K.Dayasankar on 4 January, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 04/01/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.333 of 2021
D.Karthick : Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
Minor D.K.Dayasankar
represented by his Mother
and natural Guardian
K.Nandini : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed
under section 397(1) r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records and set side the order,
dated 26/02/2021 passed in MC No.132 of 2017 on the file
of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
for Mr.K.Veilmuthu
For Respondent : Mr.N.Sathish Babu
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been filed seeking to
set aside the order, dated 26/02/2021 passed in MC No.132
of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The facts in brief:-
The marriage between the revision petitioner and
the mother of the respondent took place on 05/12/2011 as
per their customary rites. A child who is the respondent
herein was born on 27/11/2012. at the time of the birth,
the mother of the respondent namely the wife of the
revision petitioner was working as pharmacist in the
Indian Defence Department and the revision petitioner
herein is working in the Central Government Department.
Right from the conception of the child, the revision
petitioner alleged to have tortured to abort the child.
After the birth of the child, the revision petitioner did
not take any steps to take them to the matrimonial home.
On that ground, seeking maintenance amount, the
respondent filed petition through his mother.
3.That was resisted by the revision petitioner
stating that he is ready to take care of the child. Right
from the birth of the child, the wife was insisted upon
separate house. In 2013 November she took the respondent
to her parental home and after compromise, she returned
to the matrimonial home. More-over, it is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stated that the wife is earning Rs.70,000/- per month as
monthly salary. She is also having other properties. So
she can also take care of the child.
4.At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court
after finding that both the parties are well placed in
the life and earning sufficiently in their department and
accordingly, Rs.10,000/- was awarded as monthly
maintenance. So challenging the above said, this criminal
revision has been preferred by the father.
5.At the time of argument, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner would straightaway
rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another [(2021)2 SCC
324] for the purpose of argument that when both the
parties are employed, earning and well placed in their
life both of them must share the maintenance of the
child. There can be no quarrel on that proposition and no
quarrel can also be made. The above said judgment has
been uniformly followed in all cases, which is binding
precedent. Taking note of this proposition only, the
trial court has passed the order. In the relevant portion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the evidence of the parties, the mother namely the
wife of the revision has admitted during the cross
examination that she is receiving Rs.50,000/- as monthly
salary. It was the salary on 31/01/2022 and remaining
period of her service is 20 years and also used to take
increment, Dearness Allowance, etc. Similarly the
revision petitioner has also admitted during the course
of the cross examination that his monthly salary is about
Rs.64,000/- on 21/12/2020. The gross salary is Rs.
84,000/-. He also admitted that his father was a
Government employee and died and the mother is getting
family pension. So in the light of the above said clear
admission of the parties, let us go back to the finding
of the trial court. The mother of the respondent has
stated in her evidence that she requires Rs.25,000/- per
month for maintaining the child. In the evidence, she has
stated that out of the above said Rs.25,000/-, share
amount of Rs.12,500/- must be paid by the revision
petitioner. So it is a fair submission that was made
which at no stretch of imagination can be disputed by the
revision petitioner. Even Rs.12,500/- was not awarded by
the trial court, only Rs.10,000/-has been awarded.
6.The contention of the revision petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that he has to take care of his old mother and other
liabilities cannot be taken into account at all since, as
already stated the mother is getting family pension and
she is not depending upon the revision petitioner for her
life. Being the father also well placed in the society,
he must very generous in making all the amenities
available to the child. So the very filing of the
revision, in the considered view of this court, is wholly
misplaced and deserves no consideration at all.
7.In the result, this criminal revision is
dismissed.
04/01/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Family court,
Trichy.
G.ILANGOVAN,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.333 of 2021
04/01/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
