Madras High Court
K.Vijayaraman vs Akilandeswari on 22 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.360 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.360 of 2019
K.Vijayaraman ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Akilandeswari
2.Minor. Tulasi
(represented through her mother next friend) ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in
M.C.No.68 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli dated
28.02.2019, set aside the same and allow this revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan
For Respondents : Mr.VSV.Venkateswaran
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
M.C.No.68 of 2017 dated 28.02.2019 on the file of the Family Court,
Tirunelveli, directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents.
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the first
respondent was solemnized on 01.02.2009 and due to their wedlock, they
were blessed with a daughter/second respondent herein. Subsequently,
the petitioner had harassed the first respondent and due to which, they
are living separately.
3. The first respondent for herself and on behalf of her minor
daughter has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming
maintenance. The learned Judge of Family Court, Tirunelveli, after
conducting enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2019
directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to
the respondents from the date of petition and also directed to pay the
arrears amount within a period of one month from the date of that order.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present revision came to be
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
4. It is evident from the records that when the matter was taken up
on 04.03.2025, considering the fact that the revision is pending from
2019 onwards and also taking note of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there is still arrears to
the tune of Rs.6 lakhs and also taking note of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that they are ready to deposit
some amount as directed by this Court, this Court directed the petitioner
to deposit 50% of the arrears amount pending as of now i.e., Rs.3 lakhs
before the trial Court, on or before 04.04.2025 and posted the matter on
07.04.2025 for reporting compliance and when the matter was taken up
on 07.04.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has not complied with the direction of this Court and
hence, this Court posted the matter on 22.04.2025 for orders.
5. When the matter is taken up today (22.04.2025), the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has
not complied with the direction of this Court. He would further submit
that earlier the petitioner has made some payments. But according to the
respondents, there is arrears to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
6. It is pertinent to note that maintenance case came to be filed in
2017 and the impugned order came to be passed on 28.02.2019.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
by 31.12.2022, the Criminal Revision instituted by the
second respondent shall stand dismissed.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
her food, clothing and shelter through a speedy remedy.
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.”
8. 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.
9. As already pointed out, though this Court has directed the
petitioner to deposit the 50% of the arrears amount on 04.04.2025,
despite granting time, the petitioner has not even attempted to comply
with the said order.
10. Considering the above, this Court is of the clear view that the
petitioner is not entitled to proceed further. Hence, this Court concludes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
11. In the result, this Criminal Revision case stands dismissed. No
costs.
22.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
csm
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in
Dated: 22.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
