N.Prakash v. M.P.Nagalakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.10.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.13267 of 2024 N.Prakash ... Petitioner Vs.

1.N.P.Nagalakshmi 2.Rohan P.Ganapathy ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of Bhartiya Naharik Suraksha Sanitha to call for the records and set asid ethe fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2024 passed in M.C.No.477 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Sivaprakasam For R1 :

Mr.P.C.Harikumar

ORDER

The petitioner/respondent in M.C.No.477 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai filed this petition to set aside 1/14

the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2024. 2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Family Court failed to consider that the first respondent had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and thereafter claiming maintenance is with an ulterior motive. He would further submit that the petitioner is working in a Private Company and having a meagre income. Further, the petitioner after coming back from abroad in the year 2011, he is not having any permanent employment or permanent income. He would submit that after the birth, the second respondent was living with the petitioner only for couple of years and thereafter, the first respondent took the second respondent to her parental house and the petitioner has been denied the love and affection to be shared with his son.

On the other hand, it was portrayed as though the petitioner chased them out and not taking care of them is not proper. Eventhough these facts have been explained before the Lower Court, the Lower Court failed to consider the same. 3.

marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 24.11.1993 at Mylapore, Chennai. During their marriage, customary sridhana articles including the jewels, silver articles, household articles were presented. Though the demand by the petitioner's family was more, since the first respondent is the only daughter to her parents they presented the articles and performed the marriage beyond their capacity. He would submit that the petitioner is having extra marital affair with several women which the first respondent objected but the petitioner had not changed his course. Out of their wedlock, the second respondent was born to them on 06.12.1995 and thereafter too, the petitioner had not changed his course and continued his own way of life.

Further, the petitioner harassed the first respondent and subjected to cruelty by demanding dowry. The first respondent's parents had also given additional dowry. Later a stage has come where the first respondent was beaten badly and chased out of the matrimonial home. Hence, the first respondent filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.850 of 2005 seeking for judicial separation. As a counter blast, the petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.NO.1272 of 2006 seeking divorce but later it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

interim maintenance application which was ordered but no payment was made by the petitioner. The first respondent filed EP petition more than once and later, after taking coercive action some amount was paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month for the first respondent and Rs.15,000/- per month for the second respondent. Against which the present petition is filed. 4.During the pendency of the above revision, the issue was reconciled between the petitioner and the first respondent and it was decided and accepted that the monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the first respondent to be reduced to Rs.14,000/- per month on condition the petitioner pay the arrears of maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.

13,81,0000/- by way of four equal instalments and with a further condition that in case of delay, the first respondent is entitled to claim the original maintenance amount ordered by the Lower Court.

5/14

6/14

7/14

8/14

9/14

10/14

11/14

5.Recording the joint memo of compromise entered between the petitioner and the respondent, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.10.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse 12/14

To The V Additional Principal Judge, V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

13/14

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse 29.10.2024 14/14