Madras High Court
M.Kamalakannan vs J.Kavitha Sree on 4 September, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.2175 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.2175 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.19642 of 2023
M.Kamalakannan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.J.Kavitha Sree
2.Minor Ruthvika Sree
Represented by her Next Friend/
Guardian Mother Kavitha Sree ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order made in M.C.No.27 of 2022 dated
13.10.2023 on the file of the Family Court, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar
For Respondents : Ms.S.Vasavi Sridevi
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.2175 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order
made in M.C.No.27 of 2022 dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the Family Court,
Dharmapuri.
2.This Court, on 28.08.2024, had passed the following order:
“The petitioner, who is the estranged husband of the
respondent is challenging the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in
M.C. No. 27 of 2022 by the Family Court, Dharmapuri,
whereby the Lower Court had directed the petitioner to pay
maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the 1st
respondent and Rs.15,000/- to the 2nd respondent, his minor
daughter from the date of petition i.e., from 30.09.2022 and
further pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to each of the respondents
towards medical expenses of the 1st respondent and educational
expenses of the 2nd respondent apart from Rs.10,000/- as
litigation expenses.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the 1st respondent had voluntarily deserted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him and left the matrimonial home. According to the learned
counsel, the petitioner is not the reason for such desertion.
Further, it is submitted that the 1st respondent’s mother is
running a beauty parlour and earning good income; that her
brother is employed in Bangalore in a Software Concern; that
she also owns a family house in Dharmapuri and therefore,
there is no necessity for the petitioner to pay maintenance to
the 1st respondent. As regards 2nd respondent, the minor
daughter is studying in a Government Aided School. In such
circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, ordering such huge maintenance amount is not
proper. Before the Lower Court, on the side of the 1st
respondent herein, one Sivakumar, Assistant Manager of
Repco Bank, Dharmapuri, was examined as P.W.2, who had
deposed that the petitioner is employed as a Manager in Repco
Bank Head Office in T. Nagar, Chennai drawing gross salary
of Rs. 97,333.75 and other allowances and his net salary is
Rs.70,492/- together with Rs.31,344/- as other allowances,
totally amounting to Rs.1,01,836/-. In such circumstances, the
learned counsel would submit that ordering him to pay almost
50% of the salary is grossly improper as the petitioner has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
take care of his aged parents, pay housing loan and other
expenses.
3.Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the petitioner’s contentions stating that the
petitioner’s gross salary has been considered. The petitioner
has been earning Rs.1,28,677/-, which is likely to increase
yearly. Further, the petitioner had filed divorce petition on the
ground of cruelty, which came to be dismissed. The 1st
respondent had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights, which was allowed and as against the both the orders,
the petitioner has filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is
pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the
respondents would further submit that in view of the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court that as regards matrimonial
dispute, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable and
only a Civil Revision Petition has to be filed. Despite the same,
no steps have been taken by the petitioner to convert the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal to a Civil Revision Petition. Learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent is
ready for reunion and that the matter may be referred for
mediation. He would further submit that the 1st respondent’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concern is that her minor daughter should not lose the love and
affection of both parents.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a short
accommodation to get instructions from the petitioner about
the proposal suggested by the learned counsel for the
respondents for mediation.
5.Post on 04.09.2024.”
3.In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this
Court on 28.08.2024, today, when the case was taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel for petitioner informed that petitioner is not interest in any
mediation. The respondent is still willing for mediation and for reunion but
now the denial of love, affection and care is because of the petitioner’s
adamant attitude. The petitioner is working as Branch Manager in Repco
Bank and having a salary including other perks, around Rs.1,28,677/-. It is
the finding of the Lower Court, which could not be seriously disputed by the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
4.In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the orders of the Lower Court. Hence, the order passed by the Lower Court in
M.C.No.27 of 2022 dated 13.10.2023 is confirmed. Accordingly, the
Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rsi
To
1.The Family Court, Dharmapuri
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
