Madras High Court
Panneer Selvam vs Prema on 22 November, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26.09.2023
Pronounced on : 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.1266 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.15886 of 2022 and 1179 of 2023
Panneer Selvam ... Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.Prema
2.Minor Bhuvana sri ... Respondents/Petitioners
(The second respondent is represented by her mother and guardian namely, the
first respondent)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order made in M.C.No.18 of
2022 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai, dated 28.10.2022 and set aside
the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selvakumar
For Respondents : M/s.R.Padmasini
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition against the impugned maintenance
award dated 28.10.2022 passed in M.C.No.18 of 2022, granted by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai, wherein, the Court below directed to pay
monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500/- to the first respondent ie., his wife and Rs.
5,050/- to the second respondent ie., his daughter.
2.The case of the respondent/wife before the Court below is that the
petitioner entered into marriage with the first respondent on 15.07.2012. After
marriage, the second respondent was born. Due to harassment and cruelty
caused by the petitioner, the respondent left from the matrimonial home and
lived with her parent along with child. It is also alleged that the petitioner
assaulted the first respondent. In this regard, case in C.C.No.182 of 2017 is
pending against the petitioner. In view of the criminal case, the petitioner filed
HMOP.No.201 of 2017 seeking relief of restitution of conjugal rights and the
same was dismissed on 11.06.2018. Thereafter, he filed a divorce petition in
HMOP.No.226 of 2018 and the same was also dismissed on 17.03.2020. In such
circumstance, the first respondent filed maintenance petition in M.C.No.18 of
2022 before the Family Court, Sivagangai, by claiming a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
month to the respondents.
3. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral evidence of the first
respondent and the petitioner and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and Ex.R.1, granted
Rs.4,500/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.5,050/- per month to the
second respondent from the date of filing of the petition.
4. Aggrieved over the same, the present Revision has been filed by the
petitioner.
5.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial
Judge without ascertaining the income of the petitioner granted maintenance of
Rs.9,550/- to the respondents which is not legally maintainable. The learned trial
Judge failed to consider that the petitioner is working as night watchman and
gets only Rs.7,500/- per month as salary. Therefore, granting maintenance of
Rs.9,550/- is not legally sustainable.
5.2. He further submitted that the first respondent is working as teacher in
a private School and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Since she has sufficient
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
means to maintain herself and the child, there is no need to pay maintenance to
the respondents. He further submitted that the first respondent has illegal
relationship with another man. Therefore, she is not entitled to the relief of
maintenance. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the order passed by the learned
trial Judge by allowing this revision.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner is earning more than Rs.3 lakhs from the agricultural land and also
working in the private company as a night watchman and gets Rs.10,000/- per
month. Apart from that, he has other income sources. Hence, the learned trial
Judge, correctly granted maintenance of Rs.9,550/- to the respondents. Further,
as held by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner is bound to maintain his family
by doing some etc., works. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned trial
Judge does not warrant any interference and prayed for dismissal of the revision.
7. This Court considered the submission of the both parties and perused
the records and the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
8. Admittedly, there is no dispute relating to the relationship between the
parties. The allegation made against the first respondent was denied by the first
respondent. In view of the rival allegation, it is not necessary for this Court to go
into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail in the summary
proceedings. Further, it is settled principle that during the pendency of the
divorce proceeding initiated by the husband, he is duty bound to pay
maintenance to his wife. Hence, it is the duty of the petitioner to pay
maintenance to the first respondent. Since the petitioner admitted the
relationship, as a father of the second respondent, he is duty bound to maintain
them.
9. The petitioner admitted the relationship. Even though, the petitioner
received only Rs.7,500/- per month, there is a specific plea on the side of the
respondents that he has capacity to pay the amount. Further, there is a plea that
his family members have vast lands and from the lands, there is income of more
than Rs.3 lakhs. Even though, the lands stand in the names of his family
members, the plea of the first respondent is that the income is appropriated by
the petitioner is not disproved by the petitioner in the manner known to law.
Hence, the learned trial Judge reasonably granted only Rs.9,550/- as maintenance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
considering the social status of the parties. Hence, this Court does not find any
perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge.
10. To prove the plea of the petitioner that the first respondent is working
as a teacher he did not produce any evidence. He is duty bound to prove the fact
that the first respondent is gainfully employed and earn sufficient income to meet
their livelihood.
11. It is well settled principle that the petitioner is duty bound to maintain
the respondents as a husband and as a father. When the trial Court considered all
the aspects in granting maintenance, this Court has no power to interfere in the
quantum of maintenance as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in
Rajathi v. C. Ganesan reported in AIR 1999 SC 2374:-
“12.It was not necessary for the High Court to examine the
whole evidence threadbare to exercise jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Rather in a case under Section 125 of
the Code the trial court is to take a prima facie view of the
matter and it is not necessary for the Court to go into the
matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail. The section
provides maintenance at the rate of Rs 500 per month. There is
an outcry that this amount is too small. In the present case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
however, we are quite surprised that the Court granted a paltry
amount of Rs 200 per month as maintenance which was
confirmed in the revision by the Sessions Court and the High
Court thought it fit to interfere under Section 482 of the Code in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.”
12. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court,
Sivagangai, in M.C.No.18 of 2022 dated 28.10.2022, is hereby confirmed and
the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
dss
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court, Sivagangai.
2.The Section Officer,
Record Section (Criminal),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1266 of 2022
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.15886 of 2022 and 1179 of 2023
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
