Senthilkumar v. Mohanapriya

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P(MD)No.5427 of 2018 Senthilkumar ... Revision Petitioner/ Respondent Vs.

1.Mohanapriya 2.Minor Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents/ Petitioners PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 04.05.2018 made in M.C.No.22 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul and allow the revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For R - 1 : Mr.N.Marimuthu for Mr.A.Chandra Kumar 1/6

ORDER

This revision has been filed as against the order of maintenance in M.C.No.22 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, dated 04.05.2018, thereby ordering monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the first respondent and Rs.4,000/- in favour of the second respondent herein.

2.The case of the respondents is that the petitioner and the first respondent got married on 28.06.2007. Due to their wedlock, they gave birth to the second respondent on 26.01.2010. There was no cordial relationship between them and due to the misunderstanding, the respondents were driven out from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.328 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul for restitution of conjugal rights. Even after the order passed by the Court below, the petitioner did not take any steps to live together. While being so, the petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.377 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, for divorce, which was allowed on 11.03.2016 and aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred an appeal. Therefore, the respondents could not maintain themselves and as such, they filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance in M.C.No.22 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul.

2/6

3.On the side of the respondents, the first respondent herself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to 9 and on the side of the petitioner, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the first respondent and Rs.4,500/- in favour of the second respondent as monthly maintenance payable by the petitioner herein and allowed the petition. Challenging the same, the present revision. 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6.In fact, this Court by order dated 02.08.2018, directed the petitioner to deposit 70% of the entire arrears amount on or before 31.08.2018 and also directed the petitioner to deposit the monthly maintenance for a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month on or before 6th day of every English Calendar month. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the same.

3/6

7.It is seen from the records that the petitioner had only driven out the first respondent from the matrimonial home. Though the petitioner obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, he had not taken any steps to live together with the first respondent. That apart, immediately, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.377 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul. Therefore, the trial Court rightly ordered maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to the respondents as monthly maintenance and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps to execute the order of maintenance in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ps 4/6

To The Family Court, Dindigul.

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ps Order made in 11.04.2023 6/6