Partly allowed

Aravindakshan v. Vimala

Madras HC25 Apr 2018CRL RC/1373/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay maintenance to an earning wife, confirming her ability to maintain herself. Simultaneously, the Court held that maintenance for the minor children appointed to correct the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The order directing payment to the wife was set aside; the order for minor children was confirmed; petitioner directed to pay maintenance as per Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Aravindakshan Vs Vimala — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.04.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No. 1373 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

¶6

Aravindakshan

¶7

.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Vimala
2.Minor Anirudh
3.Minor Abinanth
.. Respondents
Minor Respondents 2 & 3 are represented by
their Mother next friend Vimala

¶8

Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 27.05.2011 made in M.C. No. 120 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : No Appearance

¶10

This revision has been filed by the respondent in M.C. No.120/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore against the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent has filed a case in M.C. No. 120/2007 for herself and on behalf of 2nd & 3rd respondents, who are minors born to the petitioner and the first respondent before the Family Court, Coimbatore, seeking maintenance. After adopting all formalities and after serving notices to all parties, the Family Court had

¶12

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

¶13

passed an order, directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.1,250/each to the 2nd & 3rd respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner approached this Court.

¶14

It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife. Further, at the time of filing maintenance case, the revision petitioner was working as driver in Qatar and the first respondent was working as staff in Coimbatore Municipal Corporation and the paternity of 2^nd & 3^rd respondents were not disputed by either side.

¶15

Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently made submissions that as per the evidence given by the first respondent before the trial Court during cross examination as RW1, she categorically admitted that she received Rs.11,500/- as salary from Coimabtore Municipal Corporation. Further, she admitted that she has been working for the past 25 years. So, the sole evidence given by the first respondent clearly establishes that she is having sufficient income to maintain herself. Without noticing the said aspect, the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore had passed an order that the first respondent is not in a position to maintain herself. But, in this case, the first respondent being the wife of the petitioner, herself admitted that she is having sufficient funds, thereby, the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore in M.C. No. 120 of 2007 is liable to be set aside in respect of the first respondent.

¶16

The learned counsel would further submit that the respondents 2 & 3 have now attained majority. So, it is not necessary to pay maintenance to the respondents 2 & 3. In this regard, as per the petitioner's submissions, the 2^nd respondent Anirudh was born on 04.08.1996 and the 3^rd respondent Abinanth was born on 29.05.1999. Now on considering the said submission of the petitioner, with the facts of the case, it is necessary to borne in mind that, when at the time the Respondents 2 & 3 were minors, the 1^st respondent being the mother, had filed an application, claiming maintenance for her children also.

¶17

Since this revision was filed in the year 2011, conclusively, the respondents 2 & 3 are minors at the time of filing this Revision, hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner with regard to the award passed in favour of the respondents 2 & 3, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this Court comes to the

¶18

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

¶19

conclusion that the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Coimbatore with regard to the payment of maintenance to the 1^st respondent is set aside and with regard to the respondents 2 & 3, the same is hereby confirmed and this Court directs the revision petitioner to pay maintenance as per limitations fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Revision Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ak
To
1. The Family Court Judge
Family Court, Coimbatore.
Copy to
The Section officer
Criminal Section
High Court, Madras 104.
+1 CC to Mr.V. Manokar, Advocate sr 36983.
Crl.R.C.No. 1373 of 2011
and M.P. No. 1 of 2011
SP(07/06/2018)

¶21

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

Aravindakshan v. Vimala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravindakshan v. Vimala

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

Praveen George Joseph Vs Ramesh Joseph

M.S.Lenin Sebas Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank

S.M.Mani Vs R.Nirmala

P.Thangavel Vs Venkatesan

Uma Shankar Vs the State Rep. Public

Viji Alias Vijiyan Vs the Inspector of Police