Dismissed

V.Baskar v. Saraswathi

Madras HC9 Apr 2016CRL RC/312/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision was admitted under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging an interim maintenance order. With no representation from either side, the High Court reviewed the summary and trial court’s summary, upheld the award of Rs.1,500/- as reasonable, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision petition was dismissed and the consequential miscellaneous petition was closed.

V.Baskar Vs Saraswathi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 08.03.2018

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRL.R.C.No.312 of 2011
and
MP.No.1 of 2011
V.Baskar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Saraswathi
2.Kirthi Kumar (Minor)
Represented by the Mother Saraswathi ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: The Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 and

¶8

401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the order dated 18.11.2010 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2009 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur and dismiss the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶10

For Respondents : No Appearance

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Criminal Revision has been filed as against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, in M.C.No.13 of 2009 directing the Revision Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

as maintenance to the respondents.

¶16

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on either side.

¶17

On a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court / Family Court would indicate that the Trial Court has taken note of the evidence and on considering the entire facts, has directed the Revision

¶18

Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents herein.

¶19

Though, both the learned counsel are not present, taking into

¶20

consideration of the pendency of the writ petition from the year 2011, I am of the view that the revision itself can be disposed of on merit.

¶21

The 1^st respondent/wife has filed an application claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her and Rs.2,500/- to the 2^nd Respondent/son. However, taking into consideration of the entire contentions raised on both sides, coupled with the fact that there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as contended by the 1^st respondent/wife, the

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

Trial Court has awarded Rs.1,500/- as monthly maintenance.

¶25

This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order

¶26

passed by the Trial Court. The Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a matter of right, unless, the order passed by the Trial

¶27

Court is perverse or against the law.

¶28

With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is

also closed.

08.03.2018

rka

Speaking / Non Speaking Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no

¶33

To Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur M.C.No.13/2009

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. rka

¶37

CRL.R.C.No.312 of 2011

¶38

08.03.2018

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.Baskar v. Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Baskar v. Saraswathi

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

Porur Murugan Vs State by

S.Imtiaz Ahamed Vs State Rep.by

G.Rajan Vs State by

Mohamed Riyaadeen@Riyal Vs State Rep.by

Palaniammal, Vs Mrs Ilahi John

C.H.Muralikrishnan Vs Inspector of Police