Partly allowed

J.Prem Kumar, M/A-32 Years v. Mrs.Sandhya, F/A-28 Years

Madras HC4 Apr 2017CRL RC/139/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision revisits an interim maintenance order. The High Court modified the interim maintenance to Rs.5,000 p.m. to each respondent due to lack of material proving higher income. Arrears were directed to be paid, and the underlying maintenance petition was listed for disposal by June 2017.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.10,000/month total; arrears of Rs.1,70,000 to be paid within four weeks; main petition disposed of by June 30, 2017.

J.Prem Kumar, M/A-32 Years Vs Mrs.Sandhya, F/A-28 Years — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Criminal Revision No.139 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.1497 of 2017

¶6

J.Prem Kumar ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.Sandhya

¶9

Master P.Dhaswanth [Rep by Mother and Natural Guardian the Ist Respondent] ... Respondents/Petitioners

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for Records in the order passed by the learned Principal Family Court, Chennai in M.P.No.878 of 2013 in M.C.No.367 of 2012 on 19.10.2016 .

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandra For Respondent : Ms.C.Shyamala

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This revision is filed by the petitioner/husband against the order passed by the learned Principle Family Judge, Chennai, in M.P.No.878 of 2013 in M.C.No.367 of 2012 on 19.10.2016, granting interim maintenance.

¶14

2.Earlier, the respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- for the second respondent/son in M.C.No.367 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. Pending maintenance case, the respondents filed an interim application in M.P.No.878 of 2013 seeking for an interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The Principal Family Judge, by an order dated 19.10.2016 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the second respondent as interim maintenance from 05.09.2013 and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as one time litigation expenses. Challenging the above order, the petitioner/husband filed the present revision.

¶15

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

¶16

3.Heard Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.C.Shyamala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a loadman and he is only deriving meager income, without considering the same, the Family Court fixed his income as Rs.30,000/- per month and ordered interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.13,000/-p.m. totally to both the respondents, which is very much on the higher side and the petitioner has no means to pay such maintenance.

¶18

5.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not working as loadman but working in his sister's concern which is a Transport company and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. In the above circumstances, the interim maintenance ordered by the Court below is very reasonable and has no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Court below.

¶19

6.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels and perused the materials on record.

¶20

7.Even though, the learned counsel for the respondent claims that the petitioner is working in a Transport Company and earning Rs.50,000/- per month, there is no material available on record to prove the same. The Court below without considering this fact has fixed the petitioner's monthly income as Rs.30,000/- per month and ordered maintenance of Rs.13,000/p.m. for the respondents.

¶21

8.In the above circumstances, considering the fact that it is only an interim maintenance ordered by the Court below and also there is no materials available on record to show that the petitioner is earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., and the respondents are the wife and the son and they have no other source of income and no means to maintain themselves, the interim maintenance ordered by the Court below is modified to Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each respondent.

¶22

9.Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards interim maintenance for the respondents every month on or before 5^th of every English Calender month and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- towards arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.30,000/- and on payment of the remaining arrears amount as

¶23

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

¶24

ordered by this Court, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the entire arrears amount deposited by the petitioner. Since, the maintenance case is pending from 2012, the Family Court is directed to dispose of the M.C.No.367 of 2012 on or before 30^th June 2017. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rm
To
The Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandira, Advocate Sr.19991
+2cc to M/S.C.Shyamala, Advocate Sr.20300
Criminal Revision No.139 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No.1497 of 2017
nrjk[co]
srg 24/04/2017

¶26

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

J.Prem Kumar, M/A-32 Years v. Mrs.Sandhya, F/A-28 Years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Prem Kumar, M/A-32 Years v. Mrs.Sandhya, F/A-28 Years

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

Murugan Vs Manoharan

Harinarayan Garg Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Kannappan Vs K.Appavu Pandian

P.Kesavan Vs v.Sunil

M.Rajendran, M/a 59 Years, Vs T.Mani @ Subramani, M/a 46 Yrs

H.Logesh Vs Tmt.G.Menaka @ Mekala