R.J. Rajeshkumar, v. J. Ezhilarasi,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2016 (Orders Reserved on : 21.07.2016) CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.447 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.2993 of 2016 R.J.Rajeshkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. J.Ezhilarasi

2. Minor R.Ovia, Rep. by her Natural Guardian and Mother, J.Ezhilarasi.

... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the common order dated 22.09.2015 made in M.C.No.111 of 2013, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, and prays to set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ganesh Rajan For Respondents : Mr.B.Jawahar

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the common order dated 22.09.2015 made in M.C.No.111 of 2013, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

2. The facts leading to the criminal revision case are, briefly, as follows:- The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent took place on 21.06.2010 at Kovai Maniyakarampalayam Krishna Gounder Kalyana Mandabam as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of the said wedlock, a female child was born to them. Due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and the first respondent, they were living separately and the respondents have filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.111 of 2013 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the Family Court, Coimbatore. At the same time, the revision petitioner has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.324 of 2013 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, against the first

respondent/wife under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce and both the cases were tried together in the Family Court, Coimbatore. The Family Court, Coimbatore, after considering the entire evidence and the documents produced on either side, finally dismissed the divorce petition filed by the revision petitioner/husband in H.M.O.P.No.324 of 2013 and partly allowed the maintenance petition filed by the respondents in M.C.No.111 of 2013 and directed the revision petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the second respondent from the date of petition on or before 10th of every English Calender Month. As against the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court, Coimbatore, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the husband/revision petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the trial Court, without considering the evidence and the documents produced on the side of the petitioner, erroneously directed the revision petitioner/husband to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. It is further contended that the trial Court, grossly erred in awarding maintenance when admittedly, the first respondent was refusing to live with the petitioner without sufficient reason. The learned counsel also contended that the trial Court grossly erred in conducting joint trial for the divorce petition as well as the maintenance case and the trial Court ought to have dismissed the maintenance petition filed by the first respondent/wife and the second respondent/daughter.

It is also contended that the trial Court, without application of mind, erroneously directed the revision petitioner/husband to pay the maintenance amount to the respondents and hence, the learned counsel prayed that the order of the trial Court has to be set aside and the criminal revision case has to be allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the trial Court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, correctly passed an order allowing the maintenance petition filed by the respondents and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and hence, he prayed that the order of the trial Court has to be confirmed and the Criminal Revision Case has to be dismissed.

5. In this case, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court is erred in holding that the petitioner is earning monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and also erred in conducting joint trial for the divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.324 of 2013 and maintenance case in M.C.No.111 of 2013. It is the further contention that the respondents are not at all entitled for maintenance and the first respondent has not discharged her duty that she has no sufficient income to maintain herself. In this case, even in

the petition filed by the respondents, the first respondent/wife has stated that she has no income to maintain herself and her daughter and hence they have filed a maintenance case seeking maintenance amount from the revision petitioner. On the side of the revision petitioner, he has not produced any documents to show that the first respondent has sufficient income to maintain herself and her daughter. In the absence of any documents produced on the side of the revision petitioner/husband, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the first respondent herself has no sufficient income to maintain herself and her daughter and hence, the revision petitioner/husband is liable to maintain his wife and daughter. Further, the trial Court, without any basis, approximately fixed the income of the revision petitioner as Rs.50,000/- per month.

In this case, when the petitioner was examined in the trial Court, he had stated that to prove the income and business of the petitioner, on the side of the respondents, they have produced Thirukovil Festival Book, which was marked as Ex.R.5 and in Ex.R.5, it is clearly mentioned that the concern viz., Sri Anjaneya Engineerings is run by the petitioner/R.J.Rajeshkumar and his brother Ravindran and the concern viz., Sangeeth Machine Works is run by the father of the revision petitioner and the concern viz., Ever Best Engineering is run by the petitioner/R.J.Rajeshkumar and his brother Ravindran. Further, the petitioner, in his examination, has stated that the concern Sri Anjaneya Engineerings is not now running and the said fact was also admitted by the first respondent in her cross-examination.

Further, it is admitted on the side of the petitioner that the concern Ever Best Engineering is run by the petitioner and the concern Sangeeth Machine Works is run by the petitioner along with his father. Hence, considering the business of the revision petitioner, the trial Court, approximately, fixed the income of the revision petitioner not less than Rs.50,000/- and the said finding is perfectly correct and this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court in fixing the income of the revision petitioner. Further, in Ex.R.3-Marriage Reception Invitation of the brother of the revision petitioner, the present revision petitioner is shown as the owner of the Ever Best Engineering and even in Ex.P.

1-Marriage Invitation of the revision petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner is shown as proprietor of Sri Anjaneya Engineering and Ever Best Engineering.

6. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court, considering the income and the status of the revision petitioner, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the second respondent as monthly maintenance which is appropriate one and in any way, it cannot be termed as excessive. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court, which does not warrant any

interference by this Court and hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar Jrl To The Family Court, Coimbatore.

+1cc to M/s Ganesh Rajan, Advocate Sr.63396 +1cc to M/s B.Jawahar, Advocate Sr.63400 Order in Crl.R.C.No.447 of 2016 CP(CO) RVR 15/12/2016