A criminal revision was filed to enhance maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C based on economity of the parties. The High Court found the impugned order not perverse and dismissed the revision.
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 : 19.01.2021 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Criminal Revision Case Nos.1265 and 675 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.9348 of 2019
Crl.R.C.No.1265 of 2019
A.Chinnasamy ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to set aside the order dated 23.04.2019 made in M.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Mettur, Salem District and to allow the above Criminal Revision Case.
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order dated 23.04.2019 made in M.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Mettur, Salem District.
C O M M O N O R D E R
These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the order dated 23.04.2019 in M.C.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District.
2.For the purpose of convenience, the parties are described as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is husband in M.C.No.7 of 2018. The petitioner/wife filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. After due enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District ordered a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance. Challenging the same, the petitioner/wife filed Crl.R.C.1265 of 2019 seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, whereas, the respondent/husband also filed Crl.R.C.No.675 of 2019 to set aside order dated 23.04.2019.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the year 1991 and out of their wedlock two children were born. Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent were living separately and their children, who are studying engineering, are under the care and custody of the mother/petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed M.C.No.7 of 2018 seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. After due enquiry, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner/wife. Hence, the petitioner/wife is before this Court seeking enhancement of maintenance amount.
7.The children attained majority and they are not impleaded as a party in this case. Hence, the petitioner alone approached the learned Magistrate seeking for maintenance. Considering the entire materials, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance.
8.Considering the above facts and economical status of the respondent/husband, this Court is of the view that the order of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is very reasonable. While,
exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not reappreciate the entire evidence as appellate Court. While excising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court has to see whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. On a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District in M.C.No.7 of 2018. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, if the petitioner/wife wants enhancement of the maintenance amount, she can approach the competent Court in the manner known to law. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS.VII) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, Salem District. +2cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate SR.NO.2673 & 2676 AKM/23.02.21/ 3P-4C/ Crl.R.C.Nos.1265 and 675 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.9348 of 2019 19.01.2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the low maintenance order fixed for the petitioner wife suffers from any perversity warranting revision of the maintenance order if there is no increase of maintenance amount on revision
Whether the revisional court need to reappreciate the evidence when deciding on an application for maintenance
Whether the order of maintenance can be varied by the revisional court if the petitioner seeks for additional maintenance
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Chinnasamy
P.Velmurugan
Justice P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
