Madras High Court
M. Ema Gandhi vs G. Nagarani on 5 July, 2023
S.A.No.900 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl.R.C.No.900 of 2023
M. Ema Gandhi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. G. Nagarani
2. Minor Jayaprakash ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C. against the order passed in M.C. No.13 of 2015 on the file of
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur, dated
21.01.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.B. Lenin Balu
For Respondent : No apperance
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the
orders passed in M.C. No.13 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, dated 21.01.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.13/2015
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur. The
respondents filed the said petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the present revision
petitioner.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:
i. The 1st respondent/1st petitioner and the respondent got married
on 21.11.2012 and through wedlock the 2nd respondent/2nd
petitioner was born to them.
ii. According to the 1st respondent/1st petitioner, she was ill treated
by her husband as well as by his sisters and therefore she had to
leave her matrimonial home with her child (2nd respondent/2nd
petitioner) and that she is presently living with her parents.
iii. The 1st respondent is unable to maintain herself and her child and
therefore she filed a petition in M.C.No.13/2015 on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambur, seeking for
a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to her and her child.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
iv. The present revision petitioner filed a counter in which it is stated
that the 1st respondent/1st petitioner is doing her own business and
is earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and that the 1st
respondent did not take care of him. According to him, the 1st
respondent never cooked food at home and therefore he (revision
petitioner) was made to starve always. He therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the abovesaid petition filed by the
respondents/petitioners.
4. In the trial court, the 1st petitioner examined herself as
P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The revision petitioner/respondent
examined himself as R.W.1. However, no documentary evidence was
adduced on his side.
5. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced
on both sides, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Ambur, concluded that the present revision petitioner is liable to pay a
sum of Rs.1,500/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,500/- to the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
petitioner towards maintenance on or before 5th of every English
Calendar month, vide her orders dated 21.01.2021.
6. Now, the present Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
respondent in M.C. No.13/2015 against the order.
7. Heard Mr.B. Lenin Balu, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
8.Mr.B. Lenin Balu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
contended that the revision petitioner is now inside the prison for non
payment of maintenance amount and that he never worked and earned
any amount. It is his further submission that when the 1st respondent is
doing her own business and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-, there is no
necessity for the present revision petitioner to maintain her and her son.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
9. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Ambur, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on
both sides concluded that the evidence on record shows that the present
revision petitioner used to ill treat his wife (1st respondent) and therefore
she had to leave the matrimonial home. The learned trial court judge,
had also considered the counter filed by the revision
petitioner/respondent in which it is stated that the 1st respondent/1st
petitioner was doing her own business and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month. The trial court judge further quoted the decision in Shamima
Farooqui vs Shahid khan reported in 2015 5 SCC 705 wherein it has
been held thus:
"18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the
judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi inChander
Parkash Bodh Rajv.Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC
OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined
thus : (SCC OnLine Del para 7)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
7. … an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to
be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be
heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is
for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent
grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond
his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation
of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does
not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income,
the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
Moreover, the trial court judge had considered the object of the provision
of Section 125 Cr.P.C in her judgment and came to a conclusion that the
revision petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards
maintenance to the respondents/petitioners. The trial court judge, by a
well written judgment, had considered all the aspects of the case and
there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Criminal
Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
10. In the result,
i. the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
ii. the orders passed in M.C. No.13 of 2015 on the file of
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ambur, dated 21.01.2021, is confirmed.
05.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur,
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.900 of 2023
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
Crl.R.C.No.900 of 2023
05.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
