Madras High Court
Karthick vs Shiyamala Devi on 2 January, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 02/01/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.319 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4035 of 2022
Karthick : Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
Shiyamala Devi : Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed
under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code
to call for the records relating to the order, dated
30/12/2021 made in MC No.44 of 2019 on the file of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam and set
aside the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Padhamavathi Devi
For Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been filed seeking to
set aside the order, dated 30/12/2021 made in MC No.44
of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
2.The facts in brief:-
The marriage between the parties took place, on
19/03/2018 as per their customary rites. After the
marriage, they were living in Chennai. At that time, her
sister-in-law also staying in the above said house and it
was objected by the wife. During the joint living ill-
treatment and harassment was made by the mother-in-law
and the sister-in-law is also making trouble and she was
not properly taken care by them also. The parents of the
husband also insulted; ill-treated. So because of the
above said continuous torture, she wanted to set up a
separate house. That was also not supported by the
husband and the in-laws. Later, they set up a separate
house. But the behaviour of the husband completely
changed. He was not taken care of the family and used to
come to the house in the late light. The husband has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stated that he is also going to perform another marriage
and settle in abroad. On 25/11/2018, the husband left the
matrimonial home stating that he was called by his
mother. But thereafter, did not return. There was no
communication also. On 02/12/2018, there was a panchayat.
That was also spoiled by the mother-in-law and the
sister-in-law. A compromise talk was also undertaken by
the elders. Even after the above said compromise talk,
there was no improvement in the behaviour of the husband.
On 06/04/2019, she was taken to her parental home by the
husband stating that he will come and pick up within two
days and thereafter, also there was no communication.
Later, he issued a notice seeking divorce. He is working
in Signatech Services Private Limited, Chennai and
earning Rs.9,00,000/- per annum. Apart from that, he is
also having house and other properties. Seeking
maintenance, petition has been filed by the wife before
the trial court.
3.That was resisted by the husband stating that
the wife used to pick up quarrel even for trivial issue.
She was making quarrel to take a separate house. Because
of the compulsion only, they arranged a separate house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and also insisted upon buying a new house. She also
threatened to divorce him. Because of the above said
behaviour, his life became miserable.
4.During the enquiry, the petitioner did not
appear. After cross examination of PW1 was over, the
trial court adjourned the matter for the appearance of
the parties. In-spite of the adjournment, the petitioner
did not appear and so, the evidence was closed, on
16/12/2021. After perusing the evidence on record, the
trial court passed an order directing the
petitioner/husband to pay Rs.10,000/- as monthly
maintenance to the wife.
5.Challenging the above said order, this revision
has been preferred by the husband on very many grounds.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would straightaway rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme court in the case of Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Kamal Devi
(AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 83) for the purpose of argument
that the earning capacity of the wife is an important
criteria for deciding the quantum of maintenance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.No doubt that the earning capacity is also a
deciding factor. But here, as mentioned above in the
trial court, after cross examining the wife, the
petitioner did not appear and even not taken care to
produce his statements of assets and liabilities, also
not even stated his monthly income.
8.As has been stated in the counter, it appears
that there was a small issue between the husband and
wife, either over setting up of a separate house or new
house. These things ought to have been sorted out
amicably and in-spite of repeated compromise talk
undertaken by the friends, it did not succeed. The reason
for the above said failure is also not clear on record.
9.Now whatever it may be, separation is admitted.
Divorce notice has also been sent. What happened after
that is not clear on record. Here absolutely, there is
no evidence on record to show that the respondent/wife
though educated, is employed. Unless she is employed and
earning money, she is entitled for being maintained by
the husband. So that duty cannot be questioned.
10.So apart from that, it is also contended to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
effect that the mother-in-law was severally beaten by the
wife and she only left the matrimonial home voluntarily
are all the matters, which cannot be taken into account,
in the absence of any concrete evidence on the side of
the petitioner.
11.With this, let us go to the evidence of PW1. A
short cross examination has been done by the petitioner.
As mentioned earlier, it appears that there was no big
issue between them. As stated above, in the light of the
above said facts, they would have sorted out the issue
amicably. But the petitioner has sent a legal notice
seeking divorce. Whether any change of mind for reunion
is also not stated by the petitioner at the time of the
argument. To a question, the wife has stated that she is
ready to live with the petitioner, if no trouble is made
by her in- laws. This also shows that the real issue is
between herself and the in-laws.
12.No doubt that the respondent has not produced
any document to show the monthly income of the
petitioner. As mentioned earlier, the husband ought to
have produced the statement of the assets and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
liabilities. But it was not done. So it cannot be taken
advantage. It is his own wrong. Accordingly, the trial
court has awarded Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to
the wife. So considering the status of the parties, I am
of the considered view that this cannot be considered to
be excessive or luxurious in nature.
13.For the reasons stated above, this criminal is
revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
14.After passing of this order, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
still the matter is pending before the trial court. So a
direction may be issued to the trial court to expedite
the enquiry process.
15.It appears that by closing the evidence of the
petitioner, the above said order has been passed by the
trial court. Whether the petitioner has filed any
petition before the trial court to reopen the case or not
is also not clear on record. It has also been submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that he was regularly paying the above said maintenance
amount. In the absence of any clear record to show that
the petitioner has filed a petition to reopen the case,
no direction can be issued. Accordingly, the request
made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
is rejected.
02/01/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
G.ILANGOVAN,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.319 of 2022
02/01/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
