The High Court of Madras dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order directing a retired employee to pay monthly maintenance to his second wife, holding the amount meager and the lower court's findings cogent.
The petitioner was directed to clear arrears within four weeks and continue paying Rs.3,000/- monthly by the 10th of each month.
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
CRL.O.P.NO.28157 OF 2018
AND
CRL.M.P.NOS.16384 & 16385 OF 2018
N.Padmanaban,
S/o.Narayanasami
...Petitioner / Petitioner /
Respondent
Vs.
Inmozhi,
W/o.Padmanaban
...Respondent / Respondent /
Petitioner
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.R.P. No. 17/2016
dated 18.07.2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore confirming the order dated
31.03.2016 passed in M.C.34/2013 on the file of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
ORDER
This petition has filed challenging the order in CRP. No.17
of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore dated 18.07.2018, directing the petitioner to pay a
monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent.
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of this
original petition are as follows:
The petitioner, a widower, got married with the respondent
as second wife. The petitioner has a daughter from his first
marriage and she has married. The petitioner is a retired
employee from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he is drawing a
monthly pension. After the marriage with the respondent, the
petitioner is said to have deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in
the name of the respondent and also purchased a house for the
respondent. According to the petitioner, he started suspecting
the respondent that she is determined to usurp his properties
and she has not love or affection towards him. Differences
cropped up between the spouses. The petitioner is living in the
first floor of the house and the respondent is living in the
ground floor. Meanwhile, the respondent has filed a petition for
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Cuddalore. Before the trial Court, two witnesses
were examined on the side of the respondent and six documents
were marked. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner
himself examined and marked 19 documents. On an appreciation of
evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Cuddalore directed the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance. Challenging the said order,
the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore, on an appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the
order of the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, which resulted
in filing of the present original petition before this court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and
perused the documents available on records.
4. The short point that is to be decided in the present
petition whether the petitioner is capable of paying monthly
maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent. This Court is not
inclined to go into the allegations and counter allegations made
by the parties. Since the maintenance awarded by the trail Court
is only a meager sum when compared to the present economic
situation. The petitioner is said to be a retired employee from
TNEB and he is drawing a monthly pension and other income from
his properties. The learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore
has conducted a ful-fledged enquiry into the maintenance
petition and witnesses have been examined and perused the
documents. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has gone into
the issue thoroughly and has given cogent and convincing reason
for awarding monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/- The said sum is
meager and therefore, no interference is called for into this
present case on hand.
5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. The petitioner is directed to clear all the arrears
of maintenance within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and further he is directed to
continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 10th day of
every English calender month. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
rli
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.Crl.O.P.No.28157 of 2018 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16384 & 16385 of 2018
VBM(CO)
RVM(01/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is capable of paying the awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent.
Whether the judicial discretion of the trial court in awarding maintenance requires interference in this case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Padmanaban
Inmozhi
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court