Allowed

Gracelin Ebenezer v. Suthakar Kanidurai

Madras HC17 Apr 2017CRL OP(MD)/3088/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal original petition was filed to quash maintenance proceedings against a wife. The Madras High Court quashed the proceedings by allowing the petition and closing the connected miscellaneous petition on the ground that a husband cannot claim maintenance against his wife.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in M.C.No.3 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate are quashed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Gracelin Ebenezer Vs Suthakar Kanidurai — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.04.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3088 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2346 of 2017

¶3

Gracelin Ebenezer : Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

¶4

Suthakar Kanidurai : Respondent/Petitioner

¶5

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in M.C.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.Suthakar Kanidurai Party-in-person

¶7

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by name.

¶10

It is the case of Suthakar Kanidurai that he got married to Gracelin Ebenezer on 30.04.2007 and has two children through the wedlock. It is his further contention that he has no means to maintain his wife and that his wife has neglected to maintain him. Hence, he has filed M.C.No.3 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, challenging which, Gracelin Ebenezer is before this Court.

¶11

At the outset, this petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the husband cannot claim maintenance against his wife. Hence, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C.No.3 of 2017 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶12

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶13

/True Copy/

¶14

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

¶18

The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District .

¶19

+One cc to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate, SR.No.52223

¶20

SML

¶21

RL/3C/2P/MR/10.5.2017

¶22

Order made in

¶23

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3088 of 2017

¶24

and

¶25

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2346 of 2017

¶26

Dated:17.04.2017

¶27

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

Gracelin Ebenezer v. Suthakar Kanidurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gracelin Ebenezer v. Suthakar Kanidurai

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

K.Ravi, Secretary (in-Chnarge Vs the Sub-Inspector

Niranjani, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Ibrahim Sate Vs the Inspector of Police

Ahamed Khan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karthick @ Nattu Vs the Inspector of Police

S.S.K. Sannasikaruppasamy Vs Balamurugan