C.Devasenapathy, Aged 36 Yrs v. D.Radha, Aged 32 Years,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 13.03.2018 Pronounced on : 18.04.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.R.C.Nos.64 and 65 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.470 and 471 of 2018 Crl.R.C.No.64 of 2017 C.Devasenapathy .. Petitioner Vs.
D.Radha .. Respondent AND Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2017 C.Devasenapathy .. Petitioner Vs.
1.D.Radha 2.Minor D.Prakulraja .. Respondents (Minor represented by his mother/guardian D.Radha)
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Revisions filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur in C.A.Nos.55 and 54 of 2017, dated 24.11.2017 against the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3954 and 3366 of 2016, dated 17.04.2017, by the Judicial Magistrate of Palladam in DVA.No.7 of 2016.
(Both the Crl.R.Cs) For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kesavan For Respondents : Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy
O R D E R
The Crl.R.C.No.64 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 24.11.2017 in C.A.No.55 of 2017. The Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 24.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.54 of 2017. 2.The brief facts of the case:- On perusal of the trial Court records is that the revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent, both of them got married on 29.11.2009 at P.S.G. Ponnammal Thirumana Mahal as per the
Hindu Rites and Customs. Thereafter, they have started the matrimonial life at Gananipalayam Village at the house of the husband. Out of the wedlock, the 2nd respondent in Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2018 was born on 09.09.2010 now he is aged about 6 years and pursuing his studies.
3.There are allegation and counter allegations by both the parties in their respective petition and counter. 4.The respondents herein filed a complaint under the D.V. Act in DVA.No.9 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. During the pendency of the DVA.No.7 of 2016, the respondents moved two separate applications in Crl.M.P.No.3954 of 2016 for interim maintenance for wife, seeking Rs.20,000/- as monetary relief and Crl.M.P.No.3366 of 2016 seeking Rs.20,000/- as monetary benefits for the son, who is the 2nd respondent in Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2018.
5.However, the trial Court ordered Rs.10,000/- in Crl.M.P.No.3954 of 2016 in favour of wife and as against the same, the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.64 of 2018, preferred a C.A.No.55 of 2017
before the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The 1st appellate Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the interim monetary benefits to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance petition.
6.On the other hand, the interim monetary benefits in Crl.M.P.No.3366 of 2016, the application was filed for the son, the 2nd respondent in Crl.R.C.No.65 of 2018 was ordered by the learned Magistrate to the tune of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the sum of Rs.5,000/- already paid as per order of this Court as against the same Crl.A.No.54 of 2017 was filed and it was allowed and directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs.8,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/-. 7.I heard Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the respondents in both the Criminal Revisions and perused the entire records. 8.The arguments advanced by the petitioner is that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home and she is M.B.A. Graduate, she is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, no record was placed before this Court. Regarding the earnings of the respondent
wife the main contention of the respondents are the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.99,988/- as salary by way of working in "Gamesa Renewable Parivate Limited" and the revision petitioner's brother and his wife are taking most part of the salary. At the time of final hearing, the respondents filed a typed set of papers by producing the salary certificate in which the salary of the husband appears to be Rs.1,11,986/-. The respondent husband filed a suit in O.S.No.39 of 2016, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode for partition of approximately 64 acres of family property and the income derived from the said undivided property was enjoyed only by the revision petitioner family and therefore, the 1st appellate Court has to be confirmed.
9.On considering the rival submissions and material records placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that the order of interim monetary benefits in favour of wife for Rs.15,000/- ordered in C.A.No.55 of 2017 and enhanced interim monetary benefits in fvour of son, the 2nd respondent in Crl.A.No.54 of 2017 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- already ordered by the Appellate Court does not require any interference of this Court on considering the cost of the living in the society and educational expenditure.
10.Therefore, the revision petitioner is having sufficient income from the undivided family property to the extent of 64 acres from where income has been derived from the said source and petitioner independently earning a sum of Rs.1,11,986/-. Hence, the order of the 1st Appellate Court in C.A.No.55 of 2017 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the respondent from the date of filing of the interim maintenance petition and the order passed in C.A.No.54 of 2017 directing the petitioner towards the 2nd respondent to pay Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of the petition together with Rs.5,000/- already directed by this Court shall be confirmed. 11.In the result:
(a) both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed by confirming the orders passed in C.A.Nos.55 and 54 of 2017, dated 24.11.2017, on the file of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur;
(b) the petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of interim maintenance ordered in C.A.Nos.54 and 55 of 2017 dated 24.11.2017 within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(c) the trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the D.V.A.No.7 of 2016 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18.04.2018 vs Index: Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order To 1.The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.
M.V.MURALIDARAN.J, vs Pre-delivery order made in Crl.R.C.Nos.64 and 65 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.470 and 471 of 2018 18.04.2018