The Criminal Revision petition challenging an order attaching the petitioner's salary for non-payment of interim maintenance was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner failed to challenge or comply with the interim maintenance order.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the respondent is entitled to recover arrears through attachment of salary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 21.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.RC.No.768 of 2019
Dr.L.Srinivasn
..Petitioner/Judgement Debtor/ Respondent/Respondent
Vs.
Jensi Rani
..Respondent/Decree Holder/ Petitioner/Petitioner
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and revise the order passed by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai in E.P.No.40/2019 in M.P.No.369/2018 in M.C.No.525/2017 dated 10.07.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohana Krishnan.G For Respondent : Mr.R.Thanikai Arasu
ORDER
1/3
Court, against which the husband has preferred appeal. He would submit that when the marriage between the parties is questionable, there is not need for the husband to pay maintenance to the respondent/ wife. The learned counsel for the husband would submit that this Court by order dated 06.08.2019, granted interim stay on condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.65,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the credit of M.C.No.525/2017. He would submit that in due compliance of the order, the petitioner had deposited the said amount on 09.08.2019, thereafter the order of interim stay was extended for further a period of two weeks.
2/3
contending that the wife has sufficient funds /income to maintain herself. The trial Court held that the question of sufficiency of income of the wife does not arise in the execution proceedings and that the husband/judgement debtor had not challenged the order passed in M.P.No.369/2018 and also finding that the husband/judgement debtor had not made any payment towards the arrears of maintenance allowed the Execution Petition by order dated 10.7.2019, ordering attachment of the salary, as against which, the present revision has been filed. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the revision petitioner/husband has not challenged the order passed in M.P.No.369/2018, directing the revision petitioner/ husband to pay an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and the petitioner husband has not complied with the order granting interim maintenance.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The VI Additional Principal Judge, VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.
+1 cc to M/s.R.Thanigai Arasu,Advocate Sr.No. 88098 +1 cc to M/s.G.Mohanakrishnan,Advocate Sr.No. 87846
AKM/17.12.19/3P-4C / AKM/09.01.2020
Crl.RC.No.768 of 2019
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's order attaching the petitioner's salary for non-payment of interim maintenance.
Whether a pending suit challenging the legality of the marriage affects the obligation to pay interim maintenance awarded in final orders.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. L. Srinivasn
Jensi Rani
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
