Madras High Court
A.P.Arumuga Selvan vs Revathi on 9 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.03.2025
Pronounced on : 09.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2174 of 2023
A.P.Arumuga Selvan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Revathi
2.Minor.Ponmetha
3.Minor.Ponharisaran
(respondents 2 and 3 are minors and represented
through their Guardian/the first respondent herein) ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401
Cr.P.C., to call for records in M.C.No.20 of 2017 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Tenkasi dated 22.12.2022 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For R1 : Mr.D.Venkatachalam
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.153 of 2023
ORDER
The Criminal Revision is directed against the order made in
M.C.No.20 of 2017 dated 22.12.2022 on the file of the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, granting maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The facts not in dispute are that the marriage between the
petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 03.09.2008 and due
to their wedlock, they were blessed with a son and a daughter/respondents
2 and 3 herein and that the petitioner was working in Abu Dhabi from
2013 onwards.
3. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner, while he was in
native place, had married one Valarmathi, who was working in a
supermarket at Abu Dhabi by suppressing the subsisting first marriage,
that the petitioner, by informing the second marriage, had deserted the
respondents, that when the same was questioned, the petitioner had abused
the first respondent and caused criminal intimidation that he would kill the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
respondents, that the first respondent is not having any job or means to
take care of herself and her minor children, that the petitioner has been
getting monthly salary of Rs.7 lakhs at Abu Dhabi and is also owning a
school and house property worth about Rs.5 crores, that the petitioner has
been receiving monthly income of more than Rs.5 lakhs from the school
and Rs.2 lakhs from the ancestral agricultural lands and that therefore, the
respondents were constrained to file the maintenance claim.
4. The defence of the petitioner is that the first respondent has
caused cruelty both physically and mentally, that the first respondent has
also lodged a false complaint and as a result of which, the petitioner has
lost his job, that the petitioner had sent Rs.1,48,44,183/- to the first
respondent's bank account for the period between 01.01.2013 and
03.07.2017, that the criminal case, which was instituted on the basis of the
false complaint given by the first respondent, ended in petitioner's
acquittal, that the petitioner has already filed a divorce petition and the
same was pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi,
that the first respondent has filed the maintenance claim only to extract
money by blackmailing the petitioner, that the petitioner is not having any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
job or any other means to maintain himself, that the first respondent has
purchased properties from one Annathai vide sale deeds dated 30.03.2021
and that since the first respondent is having necessary means and
properties to take care of themselves, the maintenance claim is liable to be
dismissed.
5. During trial, the first respondent has examined herself as P.W.1
and exhibited 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The petitioner has
examined himself as R.W.1 and exhibited 7 documents as Ex.R.1 to
Ex.R.7.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence
both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides,
has passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 granting monthly
maintenance at Rs.12,000/- from 09.10.2017 to 31.12.2021 and
Rs.15,000/- from 01.01.2022 to the first respondent and monthly
maintenance at Rs.15,000/- each from 09.10.2017 to 31.12.2021 and
Rs.20,000/- each from 01.01.2022 to the respondents 2 and 3 and also
directed the petitioner to pay the arrears from the date of petition within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
period of one month. Aggrieved by the said order granting maintenance,
the husband has preferred the present revision.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed the divorce petition
in H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2018 and the same was pending on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi and that pending divorce petition,
the first respondent has filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act claiming monthly maintenance in I.A.No.2 of 2021 and the
learned Principal Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, has passed an order
dated 27.09.2022 directing the petitioner to pay monthly interim
maintenance at Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents, totalling at Rs.15,000/-
from the date of petition till the disposal of the divorce petition. It is also
not in dispute that during the pendency of the revision, H.M.O.P.No.6 of
2018, after enquiry, came to be dismissed and an appeal challenging the
dismissal of the HMOP is pending.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly
contend that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the maintenance
awarded in the petition filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
the petitioner has been paying monthly interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/-
as directed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge and that the learned
Magistrate, without considering the said maintenance, has mechanically
ordered monthly maintenance at Rs.55,000/- without any basis. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, just
because another Court in another proceeding, has awarded maintenance,
that by itself is not a ground to dismiss the subsequent maintenance claim.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, considering the issue of overlapping
jurisdiction, has settled the legal position that where successive claims for
maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the relevant
Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in
the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount
is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding, that the applicants have to
mandatorily disclose all the previous proceedings and the orders passed
therein, in any subsequent proceeding and that if the order passed in the
previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, the party
would be required to move the concerned Court in the previous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
proceeding. Considering the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
present objection raised by the respondent is absolutely devoid of merits
and the same is liable for rejection.
10. In the present case, as already pointed out, the learned Principal
Subordinate Judge has granted interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/- for all
the respondents till the disposal of the HMOP and that the HMOP has
already been dismissed and even according to the petitioner's side, appeal
preferred by him is pending. Since the divorce petition has already been
disposed of, the interim maintenance order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in
H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2018 has already come to an end. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the respondents have moved a similar application under
Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act before the appellate Court and obtained
orders. No doubt, the learned Magistrate has not considered the amount of
interim maintenance awarded by the Principal Subordinate Court. Since
the divorce petition was already disposed of, the question of considering
the interim maintenance, while considering the correctness of the quantum
of compensation awarded by the learned Magistrate, does not arise at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner sent Rs.1,48,44,183/- through the first respondent's bank
account during the period between 01.01.2013 and 03.07.2017 while he
was in abroad, that the first respondent has purchased several properties in
her name and that therefore the question of granting maintenance does not
arise at all.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would
submit that the petitioner has filed a suit claiming ownership over the
properties purchased by the first respondent in O.S.No.55 of 2018 and
after trial, a decree was granted in his favour. The learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent has produced the copy of the judgment
passed in O.S.No.55 of 2018, wherein, it is evident that the petitioner has
filed the suit to declare that the properties purchased by the first
respondent are belonging to him and for permanent injunction restraining
the first respondent from alienating or encumbering the suit properties and
after full trial, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, has
passed a judgment and decree dated 05.08.2024 granting the reliefs of
declaration and permanent injunction as sought for by the petitioner. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
pertinent to note that the petitioner has obtained the reliefs of declaration
that the properties purchased by the first respondent are belonging to the
petitioner and in that fact situation, the present contention of the petitioner,
which is devoid of substance, is liable for rejection.
13. It is not in dispute that the respondents have filed a suit for
partition against the petitioner and his siblings in O.S.No.196 of 2018 and
the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Tenkasi, after full trial, has
passed a preliminary decree declaring that the respondents/plaintiffs are
entitled to 2/12 shares in the 2nd scheduled properties and Item Nos.5 to 7
in the 3rd scheduled properties and also declared that the documents
executed by the petitioner/first defendant and fourth defendant in favour
of the third defendant as null and void.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would
submit that the petitioner, in order to evade from the payment of
maintenance, has executed a sham and nominal documents in favour of his
sister and that is why, the respondents were constrained to file the above
suit and the learned Additional District Judge has specifically held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
documents executed by the petitioner along with the fourth defendant in
favour of the third defendant are null and void.
15. The main grievances of the respondents is that while the
marriage between the first respondent was subsisting, the petitioner has
entered into second marriage with one Valarmathi and thereafter he
deserted the respondents.
16. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the first respondent,
case came to be registered in C.C.No.37 of 2018 and after trial, the
petitioner was acquitted.
17. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent has produced the
marriage registration certificate of the petitioner with the said Valarmathi
and also examined the Sub Registrar and also produced the passport,
wherein, the petitioner was shown as husband of the said Valarmathi. The
learned Magistrate, considering the materials available on record, has
come to a prima facie finding that the petitioner has entered into an
another marriage with the said Valarmathi and thereby deserted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
respondents. Though the petitioner was alleging that the first marriage was
not subsisting, he has not produced any iota of evidence to substantiate the
same and as such, the finding of the learned Magistrate cannot be found
fault with.
18. The learned Magistrate, taking note of the qualification of the
petitioner and the quantum of income received by him earlier and the
properties owned by him and taking note of the needs of the respondents,
has fixed the monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/- for the first respondent
and Rs.20,000/- each for the respondents 2 and 3 from 01.01.2022 and
also granted monthly maintenance at Rs.12,000/- for the first respondent
and Rs.15,000/- each for the respondents 2 and 3 for the earlier period
between 09.10.2017 and 31.12.2021.
19. Considering the entire materials available on records and also
taking note of the fact that interim maintenance was awarded till the
disposal of the divorce petition and the subsequent disposal of the divorce
petition, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate
cannot said to be excessive and is reasonable and as such, the same cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the revision is
devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
09.04.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Tenkasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Order made in
and
Dated : 09.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:14:06 pm )
