Dismissed

A.K.Easwaran Alias v. Sumathi

Madras HC27 Jun 2016CRL RC/1100/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a maintenance order. The petitioner argued his income was insufficient and the wife was employed yet was awarded a share. Finding the petitioner failed to prove the wife's employment and the amount was not excessive, the Court found no illegality in the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

A.K.Easwaran Alias Vs Sumathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 27.06.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1100 of 2011 and MP.No.1 of 2011

¶6

A.K.Easwaran @ Vasanthakumar .. Petitioner/Respondent

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Sumathi 2.Minor Vinisha 3.Minor Vinith [Minor 2 & 3 rep by their natural guardian Mother 1st respondent) .. Respondents/Petitioners

¶9

Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.03.2010 made in MC.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Dhanasekaran For Respondents : No appearance

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The criminal revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in MC.No.34 of 2009 dated 11.03.2010, directing the respondent/husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to first petitioner/wife and Rs.750/- each to the petitioners 2 & 3/minor daughter and minor son, totally Rs.2,500/- p.m. to the petitioners with effect from 19.06.2009, together with cost of Rs.500/-.

¶13

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to respondents 1 to 3, without considering the fact that the income of the petitioner in HMOP.No.146 of 2006 is only Rs.2,000/-p.m. The respondents are attempting to file execution petition for recovery of maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/-p.m. The petitioner is not in a position to pay the above said maintenance amount. The trial Court failed to consider the respondent/wife is working in Government department and earning Rs.4,500/-p.m., hence, the order passed by the learned Chief

¶14

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

¶15

Judicial Magistrate, Erode has to be set aside and the revision has to be allowed.

¶16

3.In this case, the petitioner mainly contended that in HMOP.No.146 of 2006, he has stated that his monthly income is Rs.2,000/-p.m., the same has to be considered while passing the maintenance. The said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, the HMOP filed in the year 2006, the present maintenance petition is filed in the year 2009. There is no evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner before the trial court to prove that the respondent/wife is working in Government department and earning Rs.4,500/-p.m. The petitioner/husband filed petition copy in HMOP.No.146 of 2006 and summon in MC.No.66 of 2006, no other documents are produced before the trial Court to prove the above said allegations.

¶17

4.The order of the trial Court in awarding maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- to first respondent/wife and Rs.750/- each to the respondents 2 & 3/minor daughter and minor son, totally Rs.2,500/-p.m. to the respondents is minimum one and not an excessive amount in these days.

¶18

5.In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode deserves merits and acceptance and this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and the same does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶19

6.In the result, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

¶24

Crl.R.C.No.1100 of 2011

¶25

gj[co] srg 14/07/2016

¶26

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

A.K.Easwaran Alias v. Sumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Easwaran Alias v. Sumathi

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

A.Suresh Anto Vs Anto Teena Mary

Mohammed Ali Vs M/S.Samtech Systems

Jayaraj Vs a.Sampath Kumar

State Rep by Vs a.R.Balakrishnan

Seetyathammal Vs Vinayagamoorthy

S.Vinoth Babu Vs N.Ravi