Dismissed

S.Elangovan v. Mrs.N.Selvi

Madras HC22 Jul 2013CRL RC/1894/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Cr.P.C. Sections 397 and 401, the High Court rejected claims that the husband's inability to pay and the wife's employment were grounds to set aside the Family Court's maintenance order, confirming the award of Rs.1,500.

What did the court decide?

Directs the petitioner to comply with the trial Court's order, pay arrears within three months, and pay monthly maintenance on or before the 5th of every month.

S.Elangovan Vs Mrs.N.Selvi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22 / 07 /2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

¶5

PRAYER : Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in connection with M.C.No.89 of 2006, on the file of the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai and set-aside the order dated 12.09.2007 passed by the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai in M.C.No.89 of 2006.

¶6

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : No appearance O R D E R The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶7

The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.89 of 2006, against the revision petitioner herein / husband, stating that the revision petitioner married her on 03.03.2005, at Thiruverkadu, as per Hindu Rites and customs and the said marriage has been registered on the file of Registrar of Hindu Marriage, Avadi, Chennai on 16.03.2005. After the marriage, both the spouses, lived at matrimonial home, Anna Nagar, Pattabiram, Chennai, for a short period. During that period, her husband caused cruelty and abused her and demanded dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner left for Singapore for employment for his personal gain. As such, he deserted her. Therefore, she left the matrimonial home and led her life with her parents. She had therefore claimed monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.20,000/- with effect from July 2005.

¶8

The husband had filed a counter statement and resisted the maintenance case. The respondent stated that the petitioner lived at the matrimonial home with him till he left for Singapore. The respondent never demanded any dowry from the petitioner and he had never caused any cruelty towards her. The petitioner left the

¶9

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

¶10

matrimonial home on 13.07.2005 during the month of Aadi. Thereafter, she had not returned to the matrimonial home. The petitioner is working in a unit run canteen at HVF, Avadi and earning Rs.6,000/- per moth. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive monthly maintenance.

¶11

On considering the averments of both parties, the trial Court had framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the wife, and after scrutiny of documents marked by her and after recording evidence of the respondent, the learned judge directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as monthly maintenance to the wife from the date of petition i.e., 01.03.2006.

¶12

Against the said order, the above revision has been filed by the revision petitioner.

¶13

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the grounds in the revision that the respondent is a working lady, working at HVF canteen, Avadi and receiving a sum of Rs.2,900/- per month. The respondent owns a house at Thirunindravur, Chennai and also has TVS bike. As such, she is above need and she is leading a comfortable life. The petitioner herein has gone to Singapore and is not able to afford to lead his life at Singapore. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to pay the said maintenance amount.

¶14

On verifying the averments made by both the parties before the trial Court and on scrutiny of documents marked by the wife as exhibits and on scrutinizing the impugned order of the trial Court, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the impugned order. Further, the husband had not produced any documentary proof to show that his wife is working at HVF Canteen, Avadi. Further, the monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.1,500/fixed by the Family Court is not on the higher side, considering that the relationship between the spouses has been established. This Court directs the revision petitioner herein to comply with the trial Court's order and pay the arrears of maintenance within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subsequently, the revision petitioner herein shall pay the monthly maintenance regularly to the respondent herein on or before 5th of every English calendar month.

¶15

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

¶16

In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.No.89 of 2006, on the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai, dated 12.09.2007 is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Accordingly ordered.

¶17

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true Copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
rns
To
The II Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
MSM(CO)
ka 31/07
Pre Delivery order made in
Crl.R.C.No.1894 of 2007
22/ 07/2013

¶18

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

S.Elangovan v. Mrs.N.Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Elangovan v. Mrs.N.Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Sheriff Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

The United India Insurance Vs Thiru John Manohar

The Managing Director Vs Amudha

The Manager Vs P.S.Charless

United India Insurance Vs Sivakumar

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police