Madras High Court
K.John Richard vs J.Grace Jennifer Rohini on 19 September, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1205 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1205 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.10273 of 2024
K.John Richard ... Petitioner
Vs.
J.Grace Jennifer Rohini ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records of the order dated
24.04.2024 made in M.C.No.209 of 2020 by the learned II Additional
Principal Family Court at Chennai and set aside the same and allow this
revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunaraj
For Respondent : Ms.R.Sumithra
ORDER
The petitioner/respondent in M.C.No.209 of 2020 has filed the present
revision challenging the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned II
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner married the
respondent on 07.02.2019 according to Christian rites and customs. He
further submitted that the marriage was not consummated and matrimonial
relationship between the petitioner and respondent prevailed only for a
period of 5 months, thereafter, the respondent left the matrimonial home.
The respondent during her short stay with the petitioner had abused the
petitioner, his parents, his brother and his sister. Prior to the marriage, the
petitioner was employed in a Ship at United States of America as a cook and
he was earning around 750 US Dollars from the year 2008 and he was
employed till 2016. In the year 2016, he came to India and since he was
interested in marrying his aunt's daughter Petretia, he spent huge substantial
amount of his earnings towards her. But, lastly Petretia refused to marry the
petitioner and he got depressed and became addicted to alcohol.
3.Later on the compulsion of the family members and his parents the
petitioner married the respondent in the year 2019 and that too not lasted for
long. The respondent deserted the matrimonial home and thereafter launched
a complaint with the All Women Police Station, Avadi. The petitioner and
his parents were summoned and abused in the police station and thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent filed a maintenance petition projecting as though the
petitioner is filled with funds and the money is used for brothers and sisters
business and also in constructing the house.
4.The petitioner's father joined as Group IV employee in Avadi Tank
Factory and retired as Assistant. The petitioner's father with his monthly
pension and his life long earning constructed the house, in which, in the
ground floor the petitioner is living along with his parents and in the first
floor his brother is residing. The petitioner himself is under the mercy of his
father. This being so, as though the petitioner is financing everybody in his
family and he has got sufficient money, the respondent filed the petition
seeking maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month and the Family Court granted
Rs.25,000/- as monthly maintenance, against which the present revision is
filed.
5.The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order of the
Lower Court is not proper. The Lower Court assumed that when the
petitioner is able to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to his erstwhile lover, then
he is capable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the maintenance amount to
his wife. Coming to such conclusion and ordering the petitioner to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.25,000/- to the respondent/wife is not proper. He further submitted that
the petitioner has got serious health ailments and in support of his contention
he produced the medical reports running to several pages showing that the
petitioner has multi organ disorder. The petitioner is jobless without any
income. The petitioner is sustaining himself with the support of his father's
pension. The respondent suppressed that she is employed and not produced
any document to show that petitioner had earning capacity. No doubt, the
petitioner was earlier employed during the period from 2008 to 2016.
Thereafter, he had no employment and he is in a depressed mood.
6.He further submitted that the petitioner took the services of IC
Intelligence Detective Service, who conducted a survey on specific request.
They monitored the movement of the respondent and the report suggests that
the respondent is employed in Indiafilings Private Limited since May, 2024
and receiving a monthly salary around Rs.15,653/- and she is also
subscribing to Employees Provident Fund. Further, the respondent to gain
sympathy, projected as though she is an orphan. In fact, his father is very
much available. Thus the respondent is not coming with clean hands,
deserves no sympathy and the amount of maintenance is also on the higher
side. Since the respondent is earning and receiving sufficient income, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
needs no support of maintenance of the petitioner, who himself is in the
mercy of his father.
7.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioner relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chaturbhuj vs.
Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein it is held that the burden is
on the wife/respondent to show that the husband/petitioner having sufficient
means and the wife/respondent is unable to maintain herself. Once these two
conditions are fulfilled, thereafter the wife/respondent is entitled for any
maintenance. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner has no sufficient
means, on the other hand, the respondent/wife is having sufficient income.
8.The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the life of the
respondent started in a misery and continues to be so till date. She is an
orphan and there was no one to take care of her and she lived with the job of
cleaning and wiping the church and the church provided her shelter and food.
Finally, through the church the marriage proposal was put fourth to her and
that the petitioner's brother-in-law is a pastor in a church and believing that
the petitioner would also be a good Christian, she accepted the marriage
proposal. Thereafter only she came to know that the petitioner is an alcoholic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and had invested all his earnings in travels business in the name of his
mother, which is looked after by his brother and in the hotel business by
name Rusi Manna, a fast food centre attached to the house which is
maintained by his sister, but the petitioner admits that he used to be in the
kitchen and he is a caterer, which is also not disputed. Having such income
he cannot deny maintenance to the respondent on a false projection that all
his earnings were spent, but, he is happily living with all incomes. The
respondent is now working as a domestic help and sustaining herself with
meagre income. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted
that the petitioner is duty bound to maintain the wife, by all means.
9.Learned counsel further submitted that from paragraph 12 of the
proof affidavit of the petitioner, it is seen that he is not suffering with any
multiple organ disorders and he admits that he was admitted in Sundaram
Hospital on 02.08.2019 and 12.08.2019 for surgery on his leg and thereafter
he recovered. He is still alive, which would prove that he is hale and healthy
and carrying on with his normal functioning. This is the specific stand of the
petitioner, but for the purpose of denial in payment of maintenance, now
taken a stand that he is suffering with multi organ disorder, unhealthy and
incapable of making any earnings. Further, the petitioner admits that he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
employed in a ship in USA, earned in US dollars and was stocked with huge
cash after coming to India in the year 2016. He has spent so much amount to
his erstwhile lover/aunt's daughter but the marriage could not happened
between the petitioner and his aunt's daughter. A person, who can spent
Rs.25,00,000/-, which was admitted, cannot now make a turn around and say
that he is living penury. The respondent on enquiry confirmed that the
petitioner is running travel agency in the name of his mother and hotel
business in the name of his sister. All are maintained by the petitioner and to
avoid and deny the maintenance amount to the respondent, the petitioner is
adopting such tactics ensuing that there is no material to directly connect to
the petitioner of his earnings and living style. The petitioner's perverted
mentality is proved from the report of IC Intelligence investigation agency
dated 16.09.2024. On one stretch petitioner claims that he is supported by his
father and has got no income, on the other hand, he engaged an Intelligence
Agency to investigate and obtain a report about the employment of the
respondent, which she strongly denies. On a demurrer, if the report to be
considered, from the report it is seen that from May, 2024, the respondent is
said to be employed. In this case, the impugned order was passed on
24.04.2024. Hence, this report is also of no consequence. She further
submitted that during the cross examination of PW1, there is no suggestion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
put to the respondent about her earnings or employment, now the same
cannot be taken. The petitioner in order to deny the maintenance amount,
would go to any extent, spent huge amount but does not pay any amount.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
10.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of
the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned
order passed by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Chennai dated 24.04.2024 needs no interference. Hence, the Criminal
Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The II Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court at Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
and
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
