Allowed

P.Subashini v. P.Palaniappan

Madras HC8 Jan 2024CRL OP(MD)/205/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A wife sought quashing of an interim order directing summons to her employer for pay particulars during a maintenance case for her children. The High Court held the summons unwarranted since she had already disclosed income details per Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, allowed the petition, and directed disposal of the maintenance case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order in Cr.M.P.No.940 of 2023 dated 02.12.2023 in M.C.No.21 of 2018 set aside; CJM directed to dispose M.C.No.21 of 2018 within three months.

P.Subashini Vs P.Palaniappan — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.205 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

CRL.O.P (MD) No.205 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.146 of 2024

¶7

1.P.Subashini 2.Minor Aarna 3.Minor Aarav ...Petitioners

¶8

¶9

P.Palaniappan ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.940 of 2023 dated 02.12.2023 made in M.C.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.205 of 2024

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.940 of 2023 dated 02.12.2023 in M.C.No.21 of 2018 on the file

¶17

of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the wife. She had filed maintenance case seeking maintenance for her children alone. While so, the respondent as husband in the maintenance case filed counter stating that the wife is employed and she is capable of maintaining the children. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner by filing a petition in M.C.No.21 of 2018 had given assets and liability as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others reported in MANU/SC/0833/2020 .

¶19

3.While so, this is an exercise by the respondent as husband in the maintenance case to delay the proceedings. When the first petitioner had given all the details regarding her income, job status and income tax

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.205 of 2024

¶23

assessment, there is no necessity for the respondent in maintenance case seeking pay particulars through the employer.

¶24

4.If the employers, particularly in IT Sector are summoned for these sort of cases, there is every likelihood of the employer taking it as harassment and terminating the service of the first petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur in Cr.M.P.No.940 of 2023 in MC.No.21 of 2018.

¶25

5.On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the husband as respondent in the maintenance case sought to summon the Bank Manager regarding the Bank details of the first petitioner, which was not allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Instead, the employer of the petitioners were alone summoned.

¶26

6.Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that already the first petitioner furnished the details, the 3/5

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.205 of 2024

¶29

maintenance case is restricted to maintain the children and in the light of those developments, the summoning of documents from the employer is unwarranted. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The order passed in Cr.M.P.No.940 of 2023 dated 02.12.2023 in M.C.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam is hereby set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam is directed to dispose of M.C.No.21 of 2018 within the reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Internet:Yes./No 08.01.2024 Index:Yes/No mm To

¶31

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

4/5

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.205 of 2024

¶35

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

¶36

¶37

CRL.O.P (MD) No.205 of 2024

¶38

08.01.2024

¶39

5/5

¶40

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

P.Subashini v. P.Palaniappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Subashini v. P.Palaniappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikumar P Vs The Superintendent of Police

Paramasivan Vs The Superintendent of Police

T.Pushpam Vs The Inspector General of Police

Dhanaraj Penthamin Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Sethuramalingam Vs The Inspector of Police

Sweety Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police