← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/1203/2015allowed

Roselin Devaprakash v. Devaprakash

2021-09-20Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:20.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.RC.No.1203 of 2015 Roselin Devaprakash

...Petitioner/Petitioner

-VsDevaprakash ....Respondent/Respondent Prayer:This Criminal revision case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to revise the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in MC.No.122 of 2011 and enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.10,000/- from the date of petition viz, 19.07.2011.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Chinnaraj For Respondent : M/s.Kingsly Solomon

O R D E R

The Criminal revision case has been filed against the the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore in MC.No.122 of 2011.

2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.07.2003 as per Christian rites and customs. After marriage, the petitioner was living in matrimonial house. There arose a misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent and they were living separately. The petitioner/wife has filed a petition a maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, in M.C.No.122 of 2011. During pendency of the maintenance petition, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition in CMP. No.603 of 2011 and the learned Family Court Judge, vide order dated 14.05.2013, directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the wife towards interim maintenance. Subsequently, it was reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- as maintenance vide order dated 04.09.2015 in M.C.No.122 of 2011.

3. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/wife has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is practicing Advocate and he is owning a shopping complex in Sathyamangalam Bus Depot and he is earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The petitioner is struggling with her day to day activities and the respondent is having sufficient means. The respondent was not paid the maintenance regular. Despite having sufficient means, the respondent neglected and refused to maintain his wife. Initially, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance. Without considering oral and documentary evidence, the maintenance amount was reduced to Rs.4,000/-, which is unfair and the said amount is also very low. Hence, the learned counsel prays to allow this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is a practicing Advocate and he is earning very meager amount. However, he has to take care of his aged parents. The wife left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. Hence, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Therefore, the learned counsel prays this court to dismiss this petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. On a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, relationship of the parties as well as the fact that they are living separately are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner is unemployed and the respondent is an Advocate. Initially the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards interim maintenance. While disposing of the maintenance petition, the learned Judge has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife, which was not sufficient to maintain herself.

8. That being the case, considering the cost of living prevailing as on date, being the lady, the maintenance award passed by the lower Court is low and this Court wants to enhance the same.

9. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. The respondent is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition to till the date of 04.09.2015. Further, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as monthly maintenance to the petitioner from 04.09.2015 to till date. The

respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as monthly maintenance to the petitioner on or before 5th day of every English Calender month, without any default.

10. The respondent is directed to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance as fixed by this Court, less the amount, if any, already deposited and he is directed to pay the remaining arrears of maintenance amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision case is allowed. Consequently, Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rli To The Judge, The Family Court, Coimbatore.

+1cc to Mr.N.Chinnaraj, Advocate Sr.47983 +1cc to M/s.Kingsly Solomon, Advocate Sr.47823 Crl.RC.No.1203 of 2015 pvs[co] srg 26/10/2021