Criminal revision challenging a family court maintenance order was disposed of based on a joint memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties during pendency, reducing the maintenance amount and providing for arrears.
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024 disposed of based on compromise; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.13267 of 2024
N.Prakash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.N.P.Nagalakshmi 2.Rohan P.Ganapathy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of Bhartiya Naharik Suraksha Sanitha to call for the records and set asid ethe fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2024 passed in M.C.No.477 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivaprakasam For R1 : Mr.P.C.Harikumar
ORDER
The petitioner/respondent in M.C.No.477 of 2010 on the file of the V
Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai filed this petition to set aside
1/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2024.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Family Court failed to consider that the first respondent had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home and thereafter claiming maintenance is with an ulterior motive. He would further submit that the petitioner is working in a Private Company and having a meagre income. Further, the petitioner after coming back from abroad in the year 2011, he is not having any permanent employment or permanent income. He would submit that after the birth, the second respondent was living with the petitioner only for couple of years and thereafter, the first respondent took the second respondent to her parental house and the petitioner has been denied the love and affection to be shared with his son. On the other hand, it was portrayed as though the petitioner chased them out and not taking care of them is not proper. Eventhough these facts have been explained before the Lower Court, the Lower Court failed to consider the same.
3.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the
2/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 24.11.1993 at Mylapore, Chennai. During their marriage, customary sridhana articles including the jewels, silver articles, household articles were presented. Though the demand by the petitioner's family was more, since the first respondent is the only daughter to her parents they presented the articles and performed the marriage beyond their capacity. He would submit that the petitioner is having extra marital affair with several women which the first respondent objected but the petitioner had not changed his course. Out of their wedlock, the second respondent was born to them on 06.12.1995 and thereafter too, the petitioner had not changed his course and continued his own way of life. Further, the petitioner harassed the first respondent and subjected to cruelty by demanding dowry. The first respondent's parents had also given additional dowry. Later a stage has come where the first respondent was beaten badly and chased out of the matrimonial home. Hence, the first respondent filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.850 of 2005 seeking for judicial separation. As a counter blast, the petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.NO.1272 of 2006 seeking divorce but later it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The first respondent filed a
3/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
interim maintenance application which was ordered but no payment was made by the petitioner. The first respondent filed EP petition more than once and later, after taking coercive action some amount was paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per month for the first respondent and Rs.15,000/- per month for the second respondent. Against which the present petition is filed.
4.During the pendency of the above revision, the issue was reconciled between the petitioner and the first respondent and it was decided and accepted that the monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the first respondent to be reduced to Rs.14,000/- per month on condition the petitioner pay the arrears of maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.13,81,0000/- by way of four equal instalments and with a further condition that in case of delay, the first respondent is entitled to claim the original maintenance amount ordered by the Lower Court. A scanned reproduction of the joint memorandum of compromise filed on behalf of the petitioner and the first respondent is as follows:
4/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
5/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
6/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
7/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
8/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
9/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
10/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
11/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
5.Recording the joint memo of compromise entered between the petitioner and the respondent, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.10.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse
12/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
To
Th e V Additional Principal Judge, V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
13/14
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Crl.R.C.No.1596 of 2024
29.10.2024
14/14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order passed by the Family Court should be set aside on revision?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Prakash
N.P.Nagalakshmi
Rohan P.Ganapathy
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
