Dismissed

Jemini v. Vaijayanthi

Madras HC7 Dec 2023CRP/1585/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging appellate orders. The petitioner was a father-in-law contesting a maintenance and possession claim against him by his deceased son's wife. The court upheld the lower courts' decision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs awarded.

Jemini Vs Vaijayanthi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023 and CMP.No.10353 of 2023

¶7

Jemini . .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Vaijayanthi ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.37 of 2020 confirming the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai made in Crl.M.P.No.1944 of 2019 in D.V.No.5 of 2014.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Vijayalakshmi Dass and Viswa Associates

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

¶14

01.02.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.37 of 2020.

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023

¶18

Before the trial Court, the respondent has filed D.V.No.5 of 2014 against the revision petitioner and others. The said DVC was allowed in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent has filed Crl.M.P.No.1944 of 2019 seeking the revision petitioner to pay the alimoney and compensation to the respondent and the said petition was ordered by the trial Judge. Against, which, the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.37 of 2020 seeking to set aside the conviction and awarding maintenance amount imposed against the appellant/revision petitioner. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to claim possession and Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered by the trial Judge in D.V.No.5 of 2014. Against which, the revision petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

¶19

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the

¶20

petitioner is the father-in-law of the respondent and the properties are the self acquired property. He further submitted that the petitioner's son Megaraj and his wife and his daughters jointly resides along with the petitioner. After demise of petitioner's son Megaraj, his wife and minor daughters resides

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023

¶24

along with the petitioner and the petitioner provides all amenities to them.

¶25

He further submitted that the Courts below failed to note that, the petitioner has not know the marriage solmnized between his son Megaraj and the respondent/Vaijayanthi. Till the death of Megaraj, the petitioner and his family members has not seen her face. He further submitted that the respondent and her minor daughters filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and others before the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai in O.S.No.282 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court, holding that the marriage solemnized between the respondent and Megaraj was not properly proved by the plaintiff/respondent. He further submitted that the Courts below without adducing proper evidence of documents and without considering the petitioner's side counter, allowed the petition and direct the petitioner to pay the entire maintenance amount to the respondent, otherwise sent him civil prison till the maintenance amount realized by the respondent. Hence, he prayed to set aside judgment dated 01.02.2023, in Crl.A.No.37 of 2020.

¶26

On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the plaintiff/respondent

¶27

has right over the suir property because the properties are ancestral property . Hence, the plaintiff/respondent is entitiled to claim possession and for a

¶28

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

¶29

3/6

¶30

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023

¶31

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the order passed by the DVC proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Courts below, since because the plaintiff/respondent is living with the aged parents along with children without any source of income and the husband of the respondent also died. Hence, there is no error in the Judgement passed by the trial Court in Crl.A.No.37 of 2020, dated 01.02.2023.

¶32

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶33

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

07.12.2023

¶35

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No msrm

¶36

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

¶37

4/6

¶38

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023

¶39

¶40

The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶41

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai.

¶42

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

¶43

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

¶44

5/6

¶45

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023

¶46

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶47

msrm

¶48

C.R.P(NPD).No.1585 of 2023 and CMP.No.10353 of 2023

¶49

07.12.2023

¶50

(½)

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

Jemini v. Vaijayanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jemini v. Vaijayanthi

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

Sarah Prabhu Vs Shanthakumari

K.Shakila Vs K.Amsa

S.Rajasekar Vs M.Kuppusamy

Mr.E.Moses Prasad Samuvel(Borrower) Vs Branch Manager

Jemini Vs Vaijayanthi

Kasuthuri Bhai Vs Kannammal