Madras High Court
G.K.Raju vs Amutha on 2 March, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 02/03/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.206 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.2923 of 2023
G.K.Raju : Petitioner/Petitioner/
Respondent
Vs.
1.Amutha
2.Minor Tamizhvanan
3.Minor Praveen : Respondents/Respondents/
Petitioners
Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under
section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to
call for the records and set aside the order, dated
10/03/2022 passed in Crl.M.P No.1070 of 2018 in MC No.8
of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
for Mr.Micheal Holden Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking in
order to set aside the order, dated 10/03/2022 passed in
Crl.M.P No.1070 of 2018 in MC No.8 of 2009 on the file of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
2.The facts in brief:-
Originally, the wife along with two minor children
filed MC No.8 of 2019 seeking maintenance amount. After
full trial, the trial Court namely the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam, ordered payment of
Rs.4,500/- as monthly maintenance to the wife, Rs.2,500/-
to the first child and Rs.3,000/- to the second child.
Over which, there was no appeal by the petitioner. Later,
the petitioner filed HMOP No.151 of 2012 seeking divorce
on various grounds. That was allowed, dissolving the
marriage between him and the wife, by order, dated
31/10/2018. Later, petition has been filed in Crl.MP No.
1070 of 2018 under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure
Code on the ground that in CC No.99 of 2013, he was
convicted by the trial court; So dismissed from service,
on 24/09/2013 by order of the DIG, Thanjavur; Later, he
filed an appeal against the judgment in CC No.99 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the Sessions Court, Thanjavur. It was transferred
to the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court,
Kumbakonam. That was allowed and he was acquitted. In the
meantime, the wife also filed C.A No.41 of 2014 seeking
enhancement of sentence. That was also dismissed by the
appellate court. Stating that the divorced wife is not
entitled for maintenance during the above said period, he
wanted the trial court to modify the order.
3.It was resisted by the respondents stating that
subsequent to the appellate court judgment, he was
reinstated into service, now he is working as Deputy
Superintendent of Police. So no modification is required.
Since there is no change of circumstance. Against the
divorce granted by the matrimonial court, she has filed
CMA before the Principal District Judge and now, it is
still pending.
4.That petition was dismissed by the trial court.
Against which, this revision has been preferred by the
husband.
5.From the preamble portion, it is seen that
several round of litigations including the matrimonial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings, maintenance proceedings and criminal
prosecution were undertaken by both parties. Now the
criminal prosecution ended in favour of the petitioner,
so also the matrimonial matters. Now appeal is stated to
be filed before the Additional District Judge, Kumbakonam
over granting of divorce. So far as the maintenance
proceedings are concerned, no revision was preferred by
the petitioner against the order that was passed
originally. He waited for a very long time till the
conclusion of the criminal proceedings as well as the
matrimonial divorce proceedings. Later, only he filed
modification petition. So far as the children are
concerned, no modification was sought in the petition.
Now the second respondent stated to have attained
majority and now aged about 19 years. The third
respondent stated to be a minor and under 17 years. Now
whatever it may be, we need not go with regard to the
maintenance, that was awarded to the children, since it
has been stated in the ground of revision that he does
not want to make any objection with regard to the
maintenance of the children. Only with regard to the
wife, he is contesting.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has made submissions on various points. He would submit
that the respondents 2 and 3 have attained majority.
Since the decree of divorce has been granted, she is
ceased to be the wife of him and till the date of decree
only, she is entitled for maintenance. After that, she is
not entitled to get maintenance under section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the decree of divorce has
been challenged and now, appeal is also pending. Against
the Maintenance Order, no appeal was preferred and filed
the modification petition only in 2017. So according to
him, the order that was passed by the trial court suffers
no illegality.
8.To this, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that desertion was also proved
before the matrimonial court. The wife, who deserted the
husband voluntarily, is not entitled for maintenance and
for that purpose, he would rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Rohtash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Singh Vs. Ramendri and others [CDJ 2000 SC 136], wherein
it has been stated that the wife, who is deserting the
husband is not entitled for maintenance under section 125
of the Criminal Procedure Code. But after the divorce is
granted by the competent civil court, she is entitled for
maintenance as a divorced wife, if shown that she is not
able to maintain herself. There is no second opinion on
that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But here,
during the course of section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings that
was initiated by the wife, in 2009, there was no
matrimonial proceedings. It was initiated by the husband
only after much time. In 2020, divorce was granted on
various grounds. The main ground is cruelty. The above
said order was passed by taking into consideration of the
criminal appeal, against the judgment of conviction, that
was rendered against this petitioner. Now it has been
stated that CMA also stated to be pending. So this has
been taken into account by the trial court and refused to
modify the order. So I find no merit to differ from the
view that has been taken by the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.Further absolutely, there is no evidence on
record to show either before divorce or after divorce,
the first respondent was and is capable of maintaining
herself, having sufficient income. So no ground has been
made by the petitioner to interfere in the order passed
by the trial court.
10.In the result, this criminal revision is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
02/03/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur @ Kumbakunam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.206 of 2023
02.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
