Dismissed

R.Eswaran v. K.Ramasamy Gounder

Madras HC20 Jan 2021CRL RC/1049/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order mandating monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 each from two sons to their aged parents. The Court held the parents lacked sufficient means and the house site yielded no income, finding the revised order reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision is dismissed with costs of the respondents; connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

R.Eswaran Vs K.Ramasamy Gounder — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2021 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶3

Crl.RC.No.1049 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.7282 of 2020

¶4

1.R.Eswaran 2.R.Palanisamy

¶5

Vs.

¶6

K.Ramasamy Gounder 2. R.Deivalakshmi ... Respondents/Petitioners

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.10.2020 made in M.C.No.04 of 2017 on the file of learned Family Court, Erode.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents :Mr.K.Kannadhasan for Mr.V.Balamurugan and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 01.10.2020 made in M.C.No.04 of 2017 on the file of the learned Family Court, Erode and set aside the same.

¶11

The Petitioners are the sons of the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents are the parents. The respondents/parents filed a petition before the Family court, Erode in M.C.No.4 of 2017 seeking maintenance from the petitioners/sons. The learned Judge, Family Court,Erode after enquiry ordered that a sum of Rs.3,000/- shall be payable by each of the petitioners separately to each of the respondents as maintenance. Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶12

Heard both sides. Perused the materials available on record.

¶13

Admittedly the petitioners are the sons of the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents are living separately and they are aged about 70 years, 64 years respectively. Therefore, the learned Family Court, ordered a sum of Rs.3,000/- payable by each of the petitioners to each of the respondents separately vide order dated 01.10.2020, which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under challenge by way of this revision.

¶14

A careful perusal of the records would go show that the petitioners have taken a stand that there are properties in the name of their mother, but it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only a house site consisting of 2200 sq.ft. and further the petitioners have not proved that the said land has been let out by the respondents for lease and getting income out of it or it is an agricultural land. Merely 2200 sq.ft. of house site stands in the name of the second respondent does not mean that the respondents are getting income out of it. Admittedly it is not yielding any income as on date. Therefore, under these circumstances the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mother of the petitioner has got 2200 sq.ft. of housesite in her name and therefore there is no need to give maintenance to the respondents is not legally sustainable to decide the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even the petitioners have not established that the respondents/parents have sufficient means to maintain themselves. It is well settled proposition of law that the children are liable to maintain the age old parents who are not having sufficient means to maintain themselves. Admittedly, the petitioners are earning members and they are having sufficient means to maintain their parents.

¶15

Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the amount ordered by the Family Court is reasonable and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Family Court, Erode.

¶16

In view of the above, this Criminal Revision is dismissed with the costs of the respondents. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

arr

¶22

¶23

The VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶24

+1cc to N.Manokaran, Advocate, SR No.3394.

¶25

Crl.RC.No.1049 of 2020

¶26

VG-II(CO) CSR 18.03.2021

¶27

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

R.Eswaran v. K.Ramasamy Gounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Eswaran v. K.Ramasamy Gounder

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

S.Ashok Kumar Vs Mahaboob Basha

P.Murugan Vs K.Sunil Kumar Jain

V.Baskar Vs State of Tamilnadu

S.Yuvaraj Vs R.Sujatha

Ravichandiran Vs State by

V.Devan Vs J.Indumathi