Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/177/2020partly allowed

Murugan v. Muthupandiammal

2022-03-02Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.177 of 2020 and Crl.MP(MD) No.1539 of 2020 Murugan ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

Muthupandiammal ... Respondent/Petitioner Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to call for records to set aside the order in M.C.No.3 of 2017, dated 28.01.2020 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Viralinathan For Respondent : No appearance

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order in M.C.No.3 of 2017, dated 28.01.2020 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti, thereby, ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent/wife.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner already filed a petition for divorce and the same was allowed in HMOP.No. 203 of 2007, by an order dated 22.07.2008. Thereafter, the respondent filed a maintenance case in M.C.No. 3 of 2017, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Usilampatti. The respondent without any reason deserted the petitioner, along with their children living separately. He would further submit that all the three sons are well grown and all are well off. In fact, the respondent only leaving him and she does not require any maintenance. 3.That apart, the petitioner is a pensioner and drawing monthly pension of Rs.5,994/- and he is also hailing from all age hold ailments. Though, notice served and council engaged on behalf of the respondent, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.On perusal of records, it is revealed that there is no evidence to show that the respondent is living with her three sons. It is true that the petitioner is drawing a sum of Rs.5,994/- as his monthly pension. Further, there is also no evidence to show that the respondent only deserted the petitioner and living separately without any reason. In fact, the petitioner filed petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No. 203 of 2009, on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, it does not mean that the respondent deserted the petitioner without any valid reason and the petitioner is entitled for a maintenance even after divorce. However, the quantum of maintenance is liable to be reduced to Rs.2,000/- from Rs.3,000/-.

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed by modifying the quantum of monthly maintenance amount as Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) instead of Rs.3,000/-, payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar PNM Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Usilampatti. +1 CC to M/s.K.VIRALINATHAN, Advocate ( SR-9571[F] dated 02/03/2022 ) ORDER IN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.177 of 2020 and Crl.MP(MD) No.1539 of 2020 02.03.2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SP/17/03/2022/2P/3C