Marimuthuppandian v. Solaipriya

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS C.R.L.RC(MD) No.267 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3515 of 2016 Marimuthuppandian ... Petitioner / Respondent -vs1.Solaipriya 2.Minor Arthi ... Respondents / Petitioners (R2 is rep.by her mother R1) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records pertaining to the order passed in M.C.No.12 of 2014, dated 03.02.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, and set aside the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Aravindan For Respondents :

Mr.K.Radhakrishan (Legal aid counsel)

O R D E R

In this revision, practically, a father is fighting against his daughter. The father is the revision petitioner and the daughter is the second respondent.

2. Wife / first respondent wanted to bid goodbye to her husband / revision petitioner permanently. So, she sought for divorce in H.M.O.P. But, the husband is not for it. He is for living together. So, he filed H.M.O.P., for restitution of conjugal rights. But, their daughter is not a party to the dispute between her parents. Both the wife and daughter have sought for maintenance in M.C.No.12 of 2014.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, taking note

of the fact that the first respondent is earning as a Teacher, negatived maintenance for her. However, taking into account the earnings of her father, the learned Magistrate granted Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent. Aggrieved, the father has directed this revision.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the first respondent herself is an earning woman, she cannot file the maintenance case for her daughter. Further, without any basis, on mere guessing the learned Magistrate has granted the monthly maintenance. Even in the petition, they themselves have mentioned that he is receiving only Rs.16,000/- per month. In such circumstances, granting Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent is excessive.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that apart from paying maintenance to the second respondent, the revision petitioner has many more commitments. He has to take care of his mother also.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the revision petitioner, who worked as an Assistant in a Panchayat Union, subsequently became a Group-II Level Staff and he is earning very much. The daughter is 9 years old and she is studying in a school.

7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and also the materials on record.

8. The second respondent is a female child. She is aged about 9 years. She is a school going child. Her parents have become estranged couples. They have embroiled themselves in matrimonial litigations.

9. Admittedly, the child is in the care and custody of her mother. A daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father. It is legally permissible under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even a suit can be maintained under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

10. Ofcourse, her mother is employed. Her mother has to expose the cause of her minor daughter. Who else then will fight for the daughter with the father for getting her maintenance. In (her) hour of crisis, who else will stand behind her. Her mother is best suited to file the maintenance case for her daughter.

11. The first respondent is employed. She receives salary. If one read Section 125 Cr.P.C., the obligation to provide maintenance to children has been fixed on the father and not on the mother. By the language employed in Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

legally and practically a father is to maintain his daughter. That cannot be extended to a mother. Ofcourse, mother will cook, attend to her needs, but father will work for the family. Ofcourse, in the modern days, when both the couples are earning, to some extent employed wife can also be asked to lend her assistance to her husband in maintaining the children. But, legally speaking, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a wife cannot be directed to provide maintenance to the daughter. It will be a dangerous proposition, otherwise an erring husband will simply show his hands towards wife and escape from his duty and liability as a father.

12. Now, coming to the quantum aspect, the Trial Court has determined Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance. While fixing the quantum, the Court must take into account the need of the child, capacity of her father and also the social status of the child. The need of the child should cover expenses relating to food, clothing, accommodation, necessities of life, medical expenses, educational and other expenses. For a school going child of 9 years old, some reasonable expenses are needed. Further, the first respondent is a School Teacher. The revision petitioner is a Group-II level Government Staff. So, the revision petitioner must provide a decent standard of living to his daughter.

13. The revision petitioner is a Group-II Level Staff. He will become an Officer. Monthly Rs.16,000/- and odd is based on wrong information. A Court should not forget reality of the situation. Judges' knowledge should not be mainly based on bookish knowledge and misinformation. Mere book worms will not serve the real purpose. Pragmatism is always a better Judge. While fixing maintenance one's life experience, price situation, trend of inflation are required to be kept in mind. While doing so, really speaking, some guessing is allowed. But, it should not be a wild guess.

14. Salary of Government servant will always have upward trend. It increases regularly by way of increased Dearness Allowance (D.A), annual increment, increase of pay due to Pay Commissions. In the circumstances, Rs.5,000/- per month will not be a fabulous amount to the second respondent. And it will not be beyond the means of the revision petitioner.

15. In view of the foregoings, this revision fails and it is dismissed.

Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To:

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

3. Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, Madurai, No.97, Law Chambers, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

4. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai-23.

Copy To:- The Registrar Judicial Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+ 1 CC TO MR.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 33762 + 1 CC TO MR.R.ARAVINDAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 34065 KRK TE/AAL-MPA/ : 12/07/2016 : 4P/8C C.R.L.RC(MD) No.267 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3515 of 2016 28.06.2016