← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/927/2016dismissed

Sundaram v. Kanthammal

2016-09-22Honourable Mr Justice G. Chockalingam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.927 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7207 of 2016 Sundaram ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

Kanthammal ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 06.09.2010 passed in M.C.No.3 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Srikrishnan For Respondent : No Appearance - - - - -

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri, in M.C.No.3 of 2007, allowing the petition and directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance on or before 10th of every English Calendar month.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the respondent is not the first wife of the revision petitioner and she is the second wife and she was caught red-handed in an act of adultery followed by a Panchayat after which, the respondent was never heard about until she filed the present maintenance case. Since the respondent is not the first wife of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent.

It is further contended that the revision petitioner is a senior citizen and he is aged 72 years old. The revision petitioner is unable to maintain himself physically as well as financially and is completely depending on his children of through respondent/wife. Hence, the order of the trial Court

awarding maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent has to be set aside and the criminal revision case has to be allowed.

3. Even though private notice was served on the respondent and her name is also printed in the cause list, she has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

4. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire records.

5. In this case, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was held on 25.11.1979 and the respondent is the second wife of the revision petitioner. Further, it is contended on the side of the petitioner that the respondent was living in adultery with some other person and she was caught red-handed and brought before the Panchayat and after that, the petitioner has no knowledge about the respondent and he came to know about her only after the filing of the present petition. In this case, it is admitted on the side of the revision petitioner that through the respondent, one son and two daughters were born and all of the three were married. Further, it is admitted that the revision petitioner is living with the child born through the respondent.

There is no evidence produced on the side of the revision petitioner that the respondent is living in adultery or she was caught red-handed. In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner himself admitted that his medical expenditure itself arrives at about Rs.12,000/- to Rs.13,000/- per month, for which, there is no acceptable evidence produced on the side of the revision petitioner before the trial Court. Even according to the revision petitioner, he has spent medical expenses every month at Rs.12,000/- to Rs.13,000/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner admitted that the revision petitioner has one son and two daughters through the respondent and hence, the respondent has to be considered as the wife of the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner is liable to maintain the respondent.

6. Considering the financial status of the revision petitioner that he is spending Rs.12,000/- to Rs.13,000/- per month towards his medical expenses, the trial Court has directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance and in any way, it cannot be considered as excessive.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that 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 of the trial Court which does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar jrl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri.

2.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate Thiruvallur +2 ccs to Mr.B.Sai Krishnan Advocate sr 54253 Crl.R.C.No.927 of 2016 aa18/10/2016