Madras High Court
M.Jeyaraman vs Packiam @ Packialakshmi on 3 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.161 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.161 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1615 of 2025
M.Jeyaraman : Petitioner/ Respondent
Vs.
Packiam @ Packialakshmi : Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, to call for entire records relating to the order made in M.C.
No.46 of 2019, dated 30.09.2024 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajendran
For Respondent : Ms.M.Kamalini
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
M.C.No.46 of 2019 dated 30.09.2024 on the file of the Family Court,
Madurai, granting maintenance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
2. It is evident from the records that the marriage between the
parties was solemnized on 16.09.2024. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.958 of 2016, seeking divorce
and the respondent/petitioner filed an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the petitioner/respondent.
3. During trial in maintenance case, the respondent/petitioner
examined herself as P.W.1 and exhibited 4 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.
The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and adduced no documentary
evidence.
4. The learned Judge of Family Court, upon considering the
evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both
the sides, has passed the common order, dated 30.09.2024, granting
divorce and directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondent. Aggrieved by
the said order, the husband has come forward with the present revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
5.At the time of admitting the revision, this Court in
Crl.MP(MD)No.1615 of 2020, which was filed for interim stay, taking
note of the petitioner's undertaking to deposit some portion of the arrears
of maintenance, has directed the petitioner to deposit 60% of the arrears
amount on or before 06.03.2025 and continue to pay Rs.4,000/- to the
respondent as monthly maintenance till the disposal of the Criminal
Revision and adjourned the matter on 07.03.2025 for reporting
compliance.
6. When the matter was taken up for hearing today (ie.,07.03.2025),
at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the case
was adjourned to 24.03.2025 and again the petitioner's counsel sought
time and hence, the matter was adjourned to 03.04.2025.
7.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, (ie.,03.04.2025),
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court, but sought for
further time, without any valid reason or ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
8. In similar matter, this Court in Permalsamy Vs. Krishnaveni and
other (Crl.R.C.(MD)No.307 of 2020 dated 03.04.2023) had dealt with the
above aspects and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“14. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tomar and
others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1539, wherein, the order of the
High Court setting aside the judgment of the Family Court
was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
setting aside the order the High Court, has passed an
order directing the second respondent husband to comply
with the interim order already passed by the Family Court
on or before 31.12.2022 to pay the entire arrears of
maintenance payable to the appellants and on compliance
of the above condition, the impugned order of the High
Court was ordered to be set aside and the Criminal
Revision was ordered to be restored, but on the other hand,
in the event that the second respondent husband fails to
comply with the above direction for the payment of arrears
of maintenance by 31.12.2022, the Criminal Revision
instituted by the second respondent shall stand dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, considering the above, it is
clearly evident that the Court can very well pass
conditional order for the payment of maintenance arrears.
16. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC
324, while giving guidelines for the fixation of
maintenance amounts, has specifically held that striking
off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought
to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts find default to
be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependant
unemployed wife, and minor children.
17. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has pointed out that it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to his wife and to the
minor children.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the
position of law that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of
social justice and is specially enacted to protect women
and children. In Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 316, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
specifically observed that object of the maintenance is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of the deserted wife by
providing her food, clothing and shelter through a speedy
remedy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
19. It is pertinent to note that right to get
maintenance is not only a constitutional rights, but can be
considered as an element of universal human rights. The
very purpose of ordering maintenance is to prevent
vagrancy as a result of strained relationships and to
guarantee that the poor litigating spouse is not crippled as
a result of a lack of funds to defend or prosecute the case.”
9. The legal position above referred is squarely applicable to the
case on hand. In the case on hand also, the petitioner, without complying
with any order of this Court, has absolutely no right or locus standi to
advance the arguments or to proceed with the main revision case.
10.As already pointed out, though this Court has directed the
petitioner to deposit the 60% of arrears amount on or before 06.03.2025,
the petitioner has not even attempted to comply with the said order.
11. Considering the above, this Court is of the clear view that the
petitioner is not entitled to proceed further. Hence, this Court concludes
that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
12. In the result, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
das
To
The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
das
ORDER MADE IN
and
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 12:54:44 pm )
