Dismissed

S. Chandrasekaran v. Mrs. Tamilselvi

Madras HC21 Aug 2013CRL RC(MD)/490/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court examined a criminal revision petition filed by a husband to reduce maintenance. The Court held that his alleged illness was not a valid excuse for non-payment and enforced salary attachment. The revision was dismissed. (Note: Procedurally dismissed as the prayer failed).

What did the court decide?

Order of attachment of salary issued to enforce payment of Rs.2,100/- maintenance.

S. Chandrasekaran Vs Mrs. Tamilselvi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2013

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY

¶5

CRL.R.C.(MD) No.490 of 2011

¶6

S.Chandrasekaran

¶7

... Petitioner/Respondent

/Respondent

Vs.

1.Tamilselvi

2.Minor Chitra

3.Minor Vignesh

... Respondents/Petitioners

¶14

/Petitioners

¶15

Prayer: Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the learned Family Judge, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.57 of 2007 in M.C.No.12 of 1997 dated 25.02.2011 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the above circumstances.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned Family Judge, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.57 of 2007 in M.C.No.12 of 1997 dated 25.02.2011.

¶19

The respondent/wife has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.57 of 1997 in M.C.No.12 of 1997 for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.750/- to Rs.3000/-. The trial court, after anyalyzing the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.750/- to Rs.2100/-. The petitioner/ husband has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2011 in M.C.No.12 of 1997 before the trial court for re-opening the evidence to prove that the respondent/wife was employed in Sivaji & Co and now she is working in G.M.Trading, Madurai and earning a handsome salary. That petition was dismissed by the trial court. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.2100/per month to the respondents/wife and children. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is suffering from renal cancer and he has produced medical reports to that effect. The petitioner filed this revision praying that due to medical expenses, it is very difficult for him to pay the maintenance amount and he prays mercy of this Court to reduce the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ maintenance amount.

¶20

¶21

When the restoration petition was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on an earlier occasion, this revision was dismissed for default. Since the petitioner claimed that he is suffering from cancer, this Court thought it fit to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision is restored to file.

¶22

Today, the petitioner and the respondent are present before this Court with their respective counsel. This Court heard the submission of the revision petitioner/husband and the learned counsel appearing for them and perused the documents available on record.

¶23

5.From the perusal of records, it is seen that the revision petitioner has not paid the maintenance amount assigning some reasons. It appears that the reasons given by the revision petition are not fully correct. It appears that he was taking treatment for some ailment. But, it is not the reason for nonpayment of maintenance amount to the respondents. Therefore, the amount fixed by the Family Court is correct. There is no reason for any interference.

¶24

Under such circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai is directed to issue an order of attachment of salary for maintenance amount of Rs.2100/-.The maintenance amount shall be taken from the salary of the petitioner itself, since he is a Government Servant. The first respondent is directed to produce the details of employment of the petitioner before the trial court.

¶25

With the above directions, this revision is dismissed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

ses

¶29

To,

¶30

1.The Family Judge, The Family Court,Madurai.

¶31

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.

¶32

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.490 of 2011 21.08.2013

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rg.18.09.2013

¶34

2p/3c

¶35

¶36

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

S. Chandrasekaran v. Mrs. Tamilselvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Chandrasekaran v. Mrs. Tamilselvi

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

M.Murugan Vs Directorate of Vigilance

Muthulakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sundar @ Lakshmi Kanthan Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs Mohamed Ali

M.Rajamani Vs Nagarajan

V.Prabu Vs the Director