Partly allowed

Durai Murugadoss v. T. Muthumala

Madras HC7 Jun 2016CRL RC(MD)/570/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the father's criminal revision petition in part. The Court reduced the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 fixed for the daughter to Rs.8,000, noting that both earning parents share the obligation to maintain the child.

What did the court decide?

The monthly maintenance granted to the daughter was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.8,000 per month.

Durai Murugadoss Vs T. Muthumala — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.06.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.570 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015

¶6

Durai Murugadoss

¶7

... Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.T.Muthumala

¶10

2.Minor.Rithanya ...Respondents/Petitioners (Minor rep.by through her mother and natural guardian R1)

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records in M.C.No.39 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, dated 26.10.2015 and set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Actually, this revision is by a father as against his daughter, because he wants this Court to reduce the maintenance amount to his daughter.

¶16

2. The daughter is fortunate because her father as well as her mother are employed. Her father is holding B.P.T.Degree. Her mother is employed in a Bank.

¶17

3. Considering their respective contentions, while dismissing the claim of maintenance by the second respondent, the Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli, ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the daughter / 2^nd respondent herein.

¶18

4. Dispute arose between the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent. It is a family dispute. Now, the child is in the custody of her mother. She is a school going child. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

5. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the child can seek maintenance from his / her father. In such circumstances, the Court has to consider the financial capacity of the father. When the mother is employed, the obligation to maintain the child cannot be fully dumped on the head of the father. Both the earning couples have to take care of their children. Wife cannot be heard to say that her husband alone has to maintain the child out of his salary. Life partners are equal. They have equal right and equal obligations. This is moral and ethical. It is also legal if one look into their personal law. The first respondent cannot say I have no role to maintain the child and it is only and solely the look out of her husband.

¶21

6. The revision petitioner is a Physiotherapist. He is a Part-time Physiotherapist in a College in Coimbatore. He is being paid Rs.9,000/- per month. He cannot and should not remain idle or lazy in the rest of the time. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that Physiotherapists are earning well. They are running pain relief (palliative care) clinics. They charge fee on hourly basis. They have become adjuncts to Orthopedics. So, it would be against commonsense, if the revision petitioner says that he could able to earn only Rs.9,000/- a month.

¶22

7. The first respondent is working in a Bank. She is earning Rs.45,000/- per month. When such is the position, she can also render financial support to her daughter. Some financial difficulties have also been stated on the part of the revision petitioner. He is living in Coimbatore in a rented house. Therefore, both the earning couples should contribute their might, mite for the well being and welfare of their daughter.

¶23

8. In the facts and circumstances of financial consideration, the impugned order requires slight modification.

¶24

9. Thus, ordered as under:

¶25

(i) This criminal revision is allowed in part. (ii) The Order, dated 26.10.2015, passed in M.C.No.39 of 2015, by the Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent is reduced to Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶26

(iii) This modified order shall take effect with effect from today.

¶27

(iv) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶30

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

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

To:

¶34

The Judge, Family Court, Tirunelveli.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.J.JEYAKUMARAN, Advocate, SR No.28508

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.D.VENKATESH, Advocate, SR No.28979

¶37

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.570 of 2015

¶38

and

¶39

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015

¶40

krk

¶41

SH/DB:16.06.2016:3P/4C

¶42

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

Durai Murugadoss v. T. Muthumala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Murugadoss v. T. Muthumala

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

V.Udhayakumar Vs the Director

P. Venkateswarlu Vs the Inspector of Police

Yunish Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Murugan Vs Tamilarasi

T. Devendiran Vs the Inspector of Police

Thangam @ Thangathai Vs M.Subiramaniya @ Subiramani