Allowed

Thiru.Karthikeyan v. Tmt.Amsaveni

Madras HC3 Aug 2021CRL RC/1113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the monthly maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 9,000, considering the petitioner's commission-based income. All arrears were directed to be paid by the petitioner within the existing criminal revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 9,000; petitioner directed to pay entire arrears and future maintenance on or before the 5th of every month.

Thiru.Karthikeyan Vs Tmt.Amsaveni — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2017 And Crl.M.P.No.10506 of 2017

¶6

Karthikeyan

¶7

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Amsaveni

¶10

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records of the learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Vellore District in M.C.No.13 of 2014 dated 25.07.2016 and set aside the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.S.S.Jothivani

¶14

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to set aside the order dated 25.07.2016 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶15

2.The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.05.2011 at B.T.M.Mahal, Vellore, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage the petitioner was working as an Appraiser in Canara Bank, Ozhugur Branch, Walajapet and had completed B.Com. Degree and Diploma in Computer Application. The respondent's parents gave 25 sovereigns of Gold jewels, household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/as sreedhana to the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

3.It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter there was matrimonial dispute inbetween the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent lodged complaint before the All Women Police Station at Ranipet alleging that the petitioner is harassing her and a case was registered in Crime No.15 of 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition seeking divorce in HMOP No.22 of 2013 before the Family Court at Vellore. Whileso, the respondent filed M.C.No.13 of 2014 before the learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Vellore District, seeking a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance and after adjudication, the learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Vellore District, on 25.07.2016 awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent towards maintenance. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this revision.

¶18

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family and he receive salary only on commission basis and not salary as contended by the respondent before the lower Court and further submitted that the petitioner has no other income and the amount awarded by the lower Court is exorbitant and prayed for allowing the revision.

¶19

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that during the pendancy of this revision, the matter was referred for mediation and during mediation, the respondent demanded huge amount of money and hence no settlement was arrived.

¶20

6.Though the respondent has entered appearance through counsel, today, there is no representation for the respondent.

¶21

7.The facts of the case and the relationship between the parties is not disputed. The respondent is entitled to maintenance as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner is the only earning member of the family and he is receiving salary only on commission basis. Hence, considering the petitioner's position and the present cost of living, this Court is inclined to modify the amount awarded by the lower Court in favour of the respondent.

¶22

8.Accordingly, the amount awarded towards maintenance in favour of the respondent is decreased from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears amount, if any, and shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance on or before 5^th of every English Calender Month.

¶23

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

¶24

9.With the above modification, this revision is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

pri

¶30

¶31

The District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶32

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.S.S.Jothivani, Advocate, Sr.No. 37843.

¶34

Crl.R.C.No.1113 of 2017 And Crl.M.P.No.10506 of 2017

¶35

RSI(CO) LS(02/09/2021)

¶36

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

Thiru.Karthikeyan v. Tmt.Amsaveni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiru.Karthikeyan v. Tmt.Amsaveni

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

Maheswari @ Mageshwari Vs State Rep.by

Rajesh Kumar Vs State Rep by

Deivasigammani @ Asaikutty Vs the State Rep by

Sudharsan Muniraja Vs Anuradha

K.Sivakumar, Vs S.Vijayalakshmi

Ajay Kumar Bishnoi Vs The Inspector of Police