Madras High CourtCRL RC/139/2019dismissed

Vetri v. Saranya

2019-02-18Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 18.02.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.139 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2019 Vetri ... Petitioner Vs 1.Saranya 2.Tanujaa, (Minor) ... Respondents PRAYER:

Criminal Revision case filed under Article 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to allow the Revision in reversing the findings of the lower Appellate Court in M.C.No.33 of 2014 dated 22.11.2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Pudhucherry.

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Krishnamurthy For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishnakumar

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. To allow the Revision in reversing the findings of the Lower Appellate Court in M.C.No.33 of 2014 dated 22.11.2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry.

2. The Revision petitioner is the husband, first respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the daughter of the petitioner and the first respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 30.11.2012 as per the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage they gave birth to one female child namely Tanujaa. Subsequent to that, difference of opinion arose between them.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a petition for Divorce which was dismissed, and the first respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Puducherry, in M.C.No.33 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2014 for the maintenance of her female child (2nd respondent), in which the learned Judge directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent for the maintenance of their child.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not working, he is an unemployed person. Where as the first respondent is working as a teacher and she is having sufficient means to maintain the second respondent.

5. There is no dispute with regard to paternity of the child. As a dutiful father he is liable to maintain his minor daughter/ second respondent. Further, the amount awarded by the Magistrate is only Rs.3000/- per month the same is very reasonable.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and as there is no merits in this Revision case. Accordingly this Criminal Revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sbn To

1. The Judge, Family Court, Pudhucherry.

+1cc to Mrs.R.Krishnamurthy, Advocate, S.R.No.14430 +1cc to Mr.G.Krishnakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.15236 Crl.R.C.No.139 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1205 of 2019 CS/22/02/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/