Disposed

Jeyachandran, S/O.Porvaal v. J. Jeyarani, W/O. Jeyachandran

Madras HC3 Nov 2022CRL OP(MD)/5574/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal mediation petition challenging orders fixing monthly maintenance for a wife and children. Upholding the trial and revision courts, the Court held no illegality existed in the orders. It clarified the petitioner's liability ends for children upon majority but continues for the wife.

What did the court decide?

The maintenance claim is upheld; petitioner liable to wife only post-majority for children; arrears recovery left to first respondent.

Jeyachandran, S/O.Porvaal Vs J. Jeyarani, W/O… — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶7

Jeyachandran

¶8

... Petitioner /Vs./

¶9

1.J.Jeyarani 2.J.Satheesh

¶10

3.Minor Santhosh,

¶11

Represented by his mother, the first respondent herein.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar confirming the order passed in M.C.No.23 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poornachandran For Respondents : Mr.P.Banuprasath

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order

¶17

passed by the Court below in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2017, whereby the Court below upheld the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai,

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶20

directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to each of the respondents, who are the wife and sons of the petitioner.

¶21

2. The first respondent filed a Maintenance Case for herself and on behalf of the sons, claiming for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for each of the respondents. According to the first respondent, her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 16.07.1997 and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. The first respondent alleged that she was treated with cruelty and there was demand for dowry and ultimately, the petitioner refused to live with the respondents. The further case of the first respondent was that the petitioner was working as a Mechanic and he was earning about Rs.33,000/- per month. That apart, the petitioner was also owning properties and earning rental income. Accordingly, the first respondent sought for maintenance both herself as well as the second and third respondents, who are the children.

¶22

3. The petitioner took a stand that he had not committed any cruelty and that he was earning only a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and he had to take care of his parents and also attend to their medical expenses. The further stand taken by the petitioner is that the first respondent is earning nearly Rs.10,000/- per month from Beauty Parlour and Rs.15,000/- per month by stitching dresses.

¶23

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

¶24

2/8

¶25

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶26

4. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the respondents are entitled for maintenance and thereby, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance to each of the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Court below and the Court below confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶27

5. Heard Mr.S.Poornachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Banuprasath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

6. When the matter came up for hearing on 02.11.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed a calculation memo and stated that total arrears of maintenance that is payable by the petitioner works out to a sum of Rs.6,63,000/- and out of the same, only a sum of Rs.4,03,500/- was paid and there is a balance of Rs.2,59,500/-, which is due and payable by the petitioner. Taking into consideration the calculation memo, this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to take instructions and report before this Court.

¶29

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

¶30

3/8

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶32

¶33

7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no arrears of maintenance payable and that insofar as the maintenance for the second and third respondents is concerned, the petitioner is not liable to pay, since they have already become major.

¶34

8. This Court does not want to go into the issue of arrears of maintenance and this Court deems it fit to straightaway go into the merits of the case.

¶35

9. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient reason for the respondents to live separately from the petitioner. After rendering such finding, the trial Court went into the income earned by the petitioner and found that the petitioner, apart from his oral statement that he was earning only Rs.6,000/- per month, did not take any steps to examine any witness from the establishment, in which he is working and considering the experience of the petitioner, who was working as Mechanic for nearly 12 years, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner must be

¶36

earning not less than Rs.12,000/- per month. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to hold that the petitioner has to maintain his wife and children and

¶37

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

¶38

4/8

¶39

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶40

accordingly, fixed the monthly maintenance payable at a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month for the wife and for two children.

¶41

10. The Revision Court, once again considered the matter on merits and also took note of the order passed by the trial Court and came to a conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court does not want any interference.

¶42

11. In the considered view of this Court, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be entertained as against the order passed in the Revision, only if there are glaring infirmities and the order suffers from illegality. There is a bar to maintain a second revision and hence, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be a substitute for such a bar that has been provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶43

12. On carefully going through the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Revision Court, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same, since there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed.

¶44

13. The only other ground to be considered by this Court is regarding the

¶45

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

¶46

5/8

¶47

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶48

liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance to the second and third respondents, after having reached majority. It is seen that the second respondent became a major on 01.01.2017 and the third respondent became a major on 08.08.2021. Hence, the maintenance payable by the petitioner confines itself only till the second and third respondents reached majority. Thereafter, the liability on the part of the petitioner to pay maintenance will extend only to the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has to continue to pay the maintenance fixed by the Court below to the first respondent. If there is any arrears of maintenance payable by the petitioner, it is left open to the first respondent to recover the arrears of maintenance in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.

¶49

14. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

¶50

03.11.2022

¶51

Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sm

¶52

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

¶53

6/8

¶54

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶55

To:

¶56

1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar.

¶57

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai.

¶58

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

¶59

7/8

¶60

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶61

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶62

¶63

Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5574 of 2019

¶64

Dated: 03.11.2022

¶65

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

¶66

8/8

Jeyachandran, S/O.Porvaal v. J. Jeyarani, W/O. Jeyachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyachandran, S/O.Porvaal v. J. Jeyarani, W/O. Jeyachandran

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

Senthil Arumugam, Vs the District Collector

Laxmanan Vs the District Collector

Kutti @ Duraipandian, Vs the Inspector of Police

Durairaj Vs R.Mangalarama Subramanian

Dr. Pr.Ramasamy Vs the Deputy Director

K. Durairaj Vs Tiruchirapalli City Corporation Rep. by Its