Allowed

A.Balachandran, S/O.Ayyavu v. Thangamani @ Apsara

Madras HC18 Nov 2021CRL RC/771/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging an ex parte order granting interim maintenance. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the Magistrate to allow the husband to file a counter affidavit before disposing of the maintenance petition, while fixing the interim maintenance payable at Rs. 4,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the learned Magistrate allowing interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000 is set aside; the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 4,000 per month until fresh decision, and the C.M.P. is to be

A.Balachandran, S/O.Ayyavu Vs Thangamani @ Apsara — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

CRL.R.C.NO.771 OF 2014

A.Balachandran

... Petitioner

Versus

Thangamani @ Apsara

... Respondent

PRAYER:-

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam in C.M.P.No.5855 of 2014 in M.C.No.17 of 2014 and set aside the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian

¶14

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against an interim order passed in C.M.P.No.5855 of 2014 in M.C.No.17 of 2014, thereby, allowing the petition filed by the respondent/wife, directing payment of Rs.7,000/- as monthly maintenance by the petitioner/husband herein to the respondent/wife and directing the protection officer to submit a report within two weeks.

¶17

Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the primary grievance of the petitioner is that even though the Trial Court is entitled to pass ad-interim exparte order for maintenance even without hearing petitioner/ husband herein, the same can only be as an interim order, while granting opportunity for the husband to file counter and contest the claim of the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/-. But, however, the order clearly reads that the petition is allowed, as far as the maintenance is concerned, on the very

¶18

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

¶19

first occasion itself without granting an opportunity whatsoever for the petitioner. It is the further submission that considering monthly income of the petitioner, this Court has granted interim stay on a condition that the petitioner should pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, which is being regularly complied with by the petitioner till date.

¶20

Even though the name of the respondent is printed, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent even after granting of opportunities. On an earlier occasion when the matter was referred for the Lok Adalath, it is reported that the respondent was absent. Therefore, this Court proceeded to hear the appellant on merits.

¶21

Upon considering arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it is clear that the impugned order, in this Criminal Revision Petition, is passed exparte on the date of moving the petition without notice to the respondent. However, paragraph No.4 of the order states that the miscellaneous petition is allowed. Therefore, the said procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is incorrect. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, though it is open for the learned Judicial Magistrate to grant exparte ad-interim monthly maintenance, the interim petition should not have been allowed on the said date itself and an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to contest the interim monthly maintenance.

¶22

I am, therefore, inclined to allow this Criminal Revision Case on the following terms:-

¶23

(i) the order of the learned Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, dated 10.07.2014 in C.M.P.No.5855 of 2014 in M.C.No.17 of 2014 is set aside and inasmuch as it grants interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month;

¶24

(ii) it would be open for the husband to file a counter affidavit in C.M.P.No.5855 of 2014 and upon filing of such counter affidavit, the petition shall be further disposed of f in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate;

¶25

(iii) that the interim maintenance payable till the date of fresh determination in the C.M.P.No.5855 of 2014 shall be Rs.4,000/- as fixed by this Court, while granting interim order and as being paid by the petitioner every month and the petitioner continue to pay the same till the decision of the learned Judicial Magistrate in the above C.M.P.No.5855 of 2014 in M.C.No.17 of 2014.

¶26

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

¶27

This Criminal Revision Case is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

grs

¶33

¶34

The Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.

¶35

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, The Nilgiris.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian, Advocate, S.R.No.59605

¶37

CRL.R.C.NO.771 OF 2014

¶38

KSM(CO) PBS/03/12/2021

¶39

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

A.Balachandran, S/O.Ayyavu v. Thangamani @ Apsara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Balachandran, S/O.Ayyavu v. Thangamani @ Apsara

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

Lakshmanan Vs Devaki

Mr.M.Munuswamy, Vs M.Sangeetha Shankari

Munusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganesh @ Ganesan Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Anjali, F/a 52 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Dhanalakshmi Vs G.N.Ramasamy