Dismissed

Vajjiravelu, M/Aged About v. Eswari

Madras HC6 Jul 2017CRL RC/895/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Madras High Court declined to interfere with a Family Court order directing a retired employee to pay monthly maintenance to his wife. The court held that allegations against the wife were insufficient grounds to deny maintenance.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed at the admission stage; the Family Court order upholding maintenance was affirmed.

Vajjiravelu, M/Aged About Vs Eswari — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

CRL. REVISION CASE No.895 of 2017

¶6

CRL.MP.895/17

¶7

Vajjiravelu ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs. Eswari ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 29.02.2016 made in F.C.M.P.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Vellore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the order passed by the Family Court, Vellore in FCMP No.9 of 2014, by order dated 29.02.2016. By the said order, the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent/wife.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that since the petitioner is a retired staff from the Transport Corporation, as such, he is receiving only a monthly pension of Rs.10,000/-, and out of the same, if such said amount of Rs.3,000/- is parted away for the respondent, it would be very difficult for the petitioner to survive, as he has other commitments.

¶13

I have gone through the judgment impugned. The learned judge has given an exhaustive discussion on the issue raised before the court below and he had come to a right conclusion that the respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the petitioner. The other allegations made by the petitioner against

¶14

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

¶15

the respondent have also been dealt with by the learned judge in proper perspective.

¶16

Though very same allegations are once again reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision also, on consideration of the same, this court is not inclined to accept the allegations made by the petitioner for the reason that those allegations made against the respondent may not be a ground to refuse paying maintenance to the legally wedded wife.

¶17

Considering all these aspects, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment which is impugned herein. Accordingly, the revision fails and it is dismissed at the admission stage. Connected MP stands Closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rli/tar
To
The Presiding Officer,
Family Court,
Vellore.
+1cc to Mr.E.Kannadasan, Advocate SR.No.47541
Crl.R.C.No.895 of 2017
SR(CO)
GN(27/07/2017)

¶19

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

Vajjiravelu, M/Aged About v. Eswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajjiravelu, M/Aged About v. Eswari

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

Selvam @ Selvaraj, Vs the Executive Magistrate Cum

Karthick, M/26 Vs State Represented by

Subramanian, M/48 Vs Rameswari

Perumal M/a 46 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Mr.Syed Humayun, 58 Vs Trivinum Icope Technologies

Mr.Syed Humayun, 58 Vs Trivinum Icope Technologies