Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/189/2016closed

Micheal Raj v. Nisanthi

2020-08-25Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi2 pages

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.189 of 2016 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.08.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.R.C.(MD).No.189 of 2016 Micheal Raj .. Petitioner/1st Respondent Vs.

Nisanthi .. Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case, filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment dated 22.07.2013 made in Crl. Appeal No.47 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi confirming and modifying the quantum of maintenance made in M.C.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, dated 15.04.2013. For Petitioner : Mr.J.C.Rathnavel Pandian For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar

ORDER

This revision case is filed by the petitioner / husband as against the order of maintenance awarded by the Courts below. 2.The respondent / wife filed a petition in M.C.No.23 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, for maintenance. After hearing the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, by order dated 15.04.2013, awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner / husband to the respondent / wife on or before 5th day of every English calendar month and ordered to return the jewels and srithana articles to the respondent/wife.

3.As against the order of maintenance, the petitioner / husband filed a Criminal Appeal before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in C.A.No.47 of 2013. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge modified the quantum of maintenance amount Rs.3,000/- per month.

4.Aggrieved over same, the petitioner /accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence properly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.189 of 2016 5.When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.J.C.Rathnavel Pandian, filed a memo along with a letter given by the petitioner that pending revision petition, the petitioner / husband united with his wife / the respondent herein and they have also solved their issues amicably and therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this petition.

6.In view of the memo filed by the counsel for the revision petitioner along with the letter given by the revision petitioner, this Criminal Revision Petition is closed as no order is required to be passed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TM 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 II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi.

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.189 of 2016 25.08.2020 scr(CO) TR(14.09.2020) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2