← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/712/2018dismissed

Mr.K.Haridas, Aged 65 Years, v. Mrs.Padmini, Aged 60 Years,

2022-07-11Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN K. Haridas ... Petitioner Vs.

Padmini ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 13.04.2018 passed in M.C.No.248 of 2013 by the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr. U. Nagaraja Melanta For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Karthikeyan

O R D E R

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.04.2018 passed in M.C.No.248 of 2013 by the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai. 1/6

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent who sought maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from him, through the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent. The Family Court at Chennai in M.C.No.248 of 2013 passed the impugned order on 13.04.2018 directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of petition with an annual increase of Rs.1,500 per year. 4.

Aggrieved by the said order, this revision case is filed. When the revision petition came up for admission, stay was granted on condition directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the maintenance arrears. Thereafter, when the matter came up for further hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner and no proof of compliance of the conditional order. Therefore, Crl.M.P.10322/2018 in Crl.R.C.No.712/2018 was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2018. Then, again when the matter taken up for final hearing on 17.09.2021, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the same was dismissed. 2/6

5.

The present Crl.M.P.No.6254/2022 was filed for restoration of the Crl.R.C., this Court to decide the revision petition on merit, allowed the restoration and the revision case was taken up for final hearing. 6.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner at the time of his marriage with the respondent was serving as a Doctor in Army Medical Corps (AMC) and after his retirement, he joined Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Manipal, Karnataka. Now, he has retired and depending upon his brother and he has no source of income. He is not drawing any pension and therefore, he is not capable of paying the maintenance amount as ordered by the trial Court. 7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner lived with the respondent for a very short time and thereafter, under the guise of joining duty in Army, she deserted her and the three month old female child. With great difficulty, the respondent/wife has brought up the female child. The trial Court after considering the entire 3/6

facts, as pleaded by the respondent/wife and the petitioner/husband, as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- as maintenance per month, awarded Rs.20,000/- per month.

7(i). The conduct of the petitioner not disclosing his true income, as a pensioner and as an independent qualified medical practitioner, taken note by the trial Court and also observed that just because the respondent has rise her daughter and now, the daughter is settled in Canada, cannot be a ground to sherk the responsibility as a dutiful husband. 7(ii). The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner is nearly 69 years old and he has lost his earning capacity. Hence, seek for leniency.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that as against the order of High Court granting conditional stay directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrears and Rs.3,000 per month, he preferred SLP to the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the revision petition also dismissed for default. Later, it was restored on condition he should continue to pay Rs.10,000/- per month which he has not complied 4/6

and as against total arrears of Rs.11.10 lakhs as on date, only Rs.7.20 lakhs is paid. This also indicates the conduct of the petitioner herein and who is no inclined to pay the maintenance to his wife as ordered by the Court. 9.

This Court finds that the petitioner has deserted his wife and minor daughter during his young age, he was ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to his wife from April 2013. Now after lapse of 9 years, pleads that he has lost his earning capacity and therefore, he cannot pay maintenance. Even if it is so, it is for him to approach the Family Court for modification and alteration of the maintenance fixed. Till then the arrears of maintenance from April 2013 to till date, liable to be paid. 10.

The maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month with annual increase of Rs.1,500/- is not at all excessive in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the order of the Family Court fixing the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- with increase of Rs.1500/- per month is confirmed.

5/6

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

11.

Considering the fact, the revision petition is dismissed. 11.07.2022 AT Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking To 1.The IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.

11.07.2022 6/6