Dismissed

Tekepat Sathish Chandra Menon v. Asha Paniker

Madras HC1 Dec 2022CRL MP/18125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a recall petition challenging maintenance quantum determinations. It held that the order was not erroneous and subsequent events do not permit recall for quantum reduction, requiring a separate Section 127 Cr.P.C. petition.

What did the court decide?

Recall petition dismissed; practitioner advised to file separate petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for any reduction claims.

Tekepat Sathish Chandra Menon Vs Asha Paniker — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.18125 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.743 of 2022

¶2

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

¶3

This is an application filed to recall the findings and conclusion given in the Paragraphs Nos.20, 21 and 24 of the order dated 16.09.2022 in Crl.R.C.Nos.743, 1273 and 1274 of 2022.

¶4

Mr.N.Manoharan , learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶5

petitioner would submit that, in this case, the petitioner is constrained to file a recall application in view of the findings made in the above said paragraphs. After coming to the conclusion about the needs of the child, while considering the quantum, this Court had erroneously placed reliance only on the photographs and other pictures, which cannot be said to be conclusive proof of petitioner's income. On the other hand, when the income tax accounts were submitted before this Court, this Court ought not to have deviated from the said income tax accounts.

¶6

3.In this regard, the said submissions were very clearly and

¶7

categorically made during the course of the hearings. I have made a

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶9

1/4

¶10

conscious decision, in this case, to depart from the income tax accounts considering the lifestyle of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a decision which is made on an erroneous appreciation or misunderstanding of any document nor the same is made without affording any hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

4.Therefore, when this Court has considered the very same issue in detail and arrived at the findings, this recall petition cannot be in the form of a review or an appeal before the same Court to reconsider the issue. Therefore, finding no merits in the recall petition, it is hereby dismissed.

¶12

5.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subsequent capacity of the petitioner had gone down as also requirements of the child. Therefore, he would submit that this recall petition can be considered in terms of Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code also. I am afraid the same can be taken into account. The prayer to reduce the amount is a separate cause of action, for which a petition has to be filed before the Trial Court under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.,

¶13

and subsequent events cannot be the factors for this Court to take into

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

2/4

¶16

account to recall the order or reduce the quantum which is originally fixed

¶17

by the Trial Court and the same is affirmed by this Court.

¶18

6.Therefore, if at all the petitioner has any such claims, he has to

¶19

move the Trial Court appropriately and it may consider the case on its own

¶20

merits.

¶21

klt

¶22

Note: Issue order copy on 02.12.2022.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

3/4

¶25

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

¶26

klt

¶27

Crl.M.P.No.18125 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.743 of 2022

¶28

01.12.2022

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

4/4

Tekepat Sathish Chandra Menon v. Asha Paniker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tekepat Sathish Chandra Menon v. Asha Paniker

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.Subramaniam Vs Soliammal(died)

K.M.Gopakumar Vs Padmavathi Bai Ammal (Died)

D.T. Rajkapoor Sah @ (Died) Vs Mrs. Kamakshi Bai

P. Eswaramoorthy Vs Kumudhan

A. Palanisamy Vs M. Ramasamy

A Munusamy Vs v Saravanan