Disposed

S.Bakyalakshmi v. T.Arunkrishna

Madras HC26 Jun 2024CRL RC/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged trial Court order directing husband to produce bank statements and property documents in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance case. High Court disposed of the revision with directions: husband to file affidavit on documents f-h within two weeks, wife may file reply affidavit, and trial Court directed to dispose of M.C.No.1 of 2022 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Husband directed to file affidavit on documents f, g and h within two weeks; wife may file reply affidavit; M.C.No.1 of 2022 to be disposed of within three months.

S.Bakyalakshmi Vs T.Arunkrishna — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.512 of 2024

¶8

S.Bakyalakshmi

¶9

Vs.

¶10

T.Arunkrishna ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 04.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2515 of 2022 in M.C.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - I, Madhuranthagam and allow the criminal revision.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondent : Mr.D.S.Ramesh

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugned order dated 04.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2515 of 2022 in M.C.No.1 of 2022

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶18

by the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Madhuranthagam.

¶19

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the wife of the

¶20

respondent and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 15.09.2016 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Subsequently, there was a matrimonial dispute between them and the petitioner was driven out from the matrimonial house. While so, the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2020 seeking divorce and the same is pending for consideration. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition in M.C.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madhuranthagam seeking maintenance. Pending petition, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.2515 of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. However, the trial Court, without proper adjudication, has allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent to produce the documents, namely, f, g and h mentioned in the petition. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶21

_________ Page 2 of 8

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶24

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶25

in order to prove the assets of the respondent, the petitioner has filed a

¶26

petition in C.M.P.No.2515 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,

¶27

Madhuranthagam, to direct the respondent to produce the following

¶28

documents:

¶29

(a) Ration card of the respondent;

¶30

(b) Voter card of the respondent;

¶31

¶32

(d) Passport of the respondent;

¶33

(e) Driving licence of the respondent;

¶34

(f) State of all Bank Accounts of the respondent including

¶35

savings, current accounts for the last three years;

¶36

(g) Property documents in respect of respondent house at No.43,

¶37

AG Block, 3 rd Street, Anna Nagar, Narayanadhanam, Chennai; and

¶38

(h) documents in respect of immovable properties owned by the respondent's parents namely, Thirmurugan and Shenbagadhanam.

¶39

However, the trial Court directed the respondent to produce the documents,

¶40

namely, f, g and h as mentioned above. He further submitted that if any

¶41

contra evidence is filed by the petitioner with regard to the documents, i.e.,

¶42

Page 3 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶45

f, g and h before the trial Court, this Court may issue a direction to the trial Court to take cognizance as against the respondent as per the penal provisions.

¶46

4. The learned counsel counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there are some immovable properties and ancestral properties in the documents which were directed to be produced by the respondent vide impugned order dated 04.10.2023 and therefore, it cannot be construed that the properties contained in the documents belong to the respondent. The respondent is ready to file an affidavit to that effect before the trial Court.

¶47

5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶48

It appears that the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent,

¶49

has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in C.M.P.No.2515 of 2022

¶50

_________ Page 4 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶53

in M.C.No.1 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madhuranthagam seeking a direction to the respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. However, the trial Court directed the respondent to produce the documents, with regard to f, g and h as mentioned above. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner / wife to put forth her case, this

¶54

Court is inclined to dispose of the case with the following directions:

¶55

(i) the respondent / husband is directed to file an

¶56

affidavit before the trial Court with regard to the documents f, g and h within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶57

(ii) Upon filing the affidavit by the respondent, the petitioner / wife is at liberty to file reply affidavit with regard to the documents f, g and h before the trial Court;

¶58

(iii) If any contra evidence is filed by the petitioner / wife with regard to the documents f, g and h, the trial Court is directed to take cognizance as against the

¶59

Page 5 of 8

¶60

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

¶61

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶62

respondent / husband and shall dispose of M.C.No.1 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of filing of reply affidavit by the petitioner / wife on merits in accordance with law.

¶63

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶64

26.06.2024

¶65

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji

¶66

¶67

The Judicial Magistrate - I,

¶68

_________ Page 6 of 8

¶69

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

¶70

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶71

Madhuranthagam.

¶72

_________ Page 7 of 8

¶73

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

¶74

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024

¶75

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶76

vji

¶77

Crl.R.C.No.70 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.512 of 2024

¶78

26.06.2024

¶79

_________ Page 8 of 8

¶80

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

S.Bakyalakshmi v. T.Arunkrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Bakyalakshmi v. T.Arunkrishna

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

P.Sathyamoorthy Vs The State Rep.

M/S.Gvn Enterprises Private Limited Vs Csi Arogyavaram Medical Centre

A. Vivekanandan Vs State Rep by

Duraisamy Vs Pachiyappan

J.Angel Vs C.Johnson

Parameswaran Vs a.G.Sampath