Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/236/2016dismissed

Sheik Mohammed v. Samsu

2016-06-20Honourable Dr. Justice P. Devadass2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Crl.R.C.(MD)No.236 of 2016 Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3051 of 2016 Sheik Mohammed ... Petitioner Vs.

Samsu ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C., against the order passed in M.C.No.72 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 05.03.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan For respondent : Mr.M.Sankar

O R D E R

This revision petitioner challenges the quantum of maintenance ordered at the rate of Rs.5,000/-p.m. to the respondent/wife, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli in M.C.No.72 of 2015.

2. The revision petitioner retired from the post of Superintendent from TNEB. Taking into account of all the aspects, the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli has ordered the said maintenance amount.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is a pensioner. He gets only Rs.19,000/- as monthly pension. Further, their two employed sons are supporting their mother/respondent.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner receives more than Rs.25,000/- as pension. He himself has admitted that, if the Pension Payment Order is produced, the actual amount of pension will be known. However, he did not produce his Pension Payment Order. So adverse inference can be drawn against him. The sons are very young. Just now, they have completed their course. They are hunting for jobs.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and also the materials on record.

6. The revision petitioner was retired from TNEB after holding a very good post. In the petition and in his evidence, it is alleged that he was receiving more than Rs.25,000/-p.m. as pension. But the revision petitioner denied it and he said that he receives only Rs.19,000/- p.m. He had also stated that his monthly expenses itself is Rs.15,000/-. In the circumstances, in all fairness, he should have produced his Pension Payment Order. He had failed to do so. In such circumstances, the rightly adverse inference has been drawn against him. No material has been shown that the respondent's sons are employed.

7. In the circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli, based on the materials on record, ordered monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. In the present day, it is a very meagre amount.

8. In the result, this revision fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli.

+1 CC to Mr.T.SELVAM, Advocate, SR No.32201 +1 CC to Mr.M.SANKAR, Advocate, SR No.31497 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.236 of 2016 20.06.2016 PJL SH/DB:30.06.2016:2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/