In a revision challenging a maintenance award, the Madras High Court affirmed the trial court's order granting Rs.11,000 monthly to the wife and two minor children, citing the husband's income and the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajesh v. Neha.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed, consequently closing the connected miscellaneous petition.
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.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 02.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
Sivaperumal ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs. 1.Valli 2.Minor Theivanayagi 3.Minor Dharmaraj (Respondents No.2 and 3 Minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian namely the 1st respondent) ... Respondent/petitioner
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to pass an order to call for the records and set aside the order dated 31.01.2020 made in M.C.No.09 of 2018, on the file of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandhur. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order dated 31.01.2020 made in M.C.No.09 of 2018, on the file of the Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandhur.
1/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
Hence there was no need to pay the maintenance. Even the allegation that he is
2/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
conducted business is not correct and hence seeks for the dismissal of the order. He further stated that there was some dispute between the parties and the same
was not disclosed in the petition. Hence he reiterates dismissal of the petition.
The petitioner himself examined as R.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
3/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
adduced to prove the income of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the award passed by the learned trial Judge is not correct. Hence he seeks dismissal of the order.
10.The 1st respondent married the petitioner in the year 2003 and the 2nd respondent was born on 01.03.2007 and the third respondent was born on 09.03.2009. Due to the dispute, the 1st respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2015 for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner had appeared and agreed to live with her and hence, the said H.M.O.P was closed on 12.11.2016. Thereafter, he has not joined her. The 1st respondent filed the M.C.No.09 of 2018 and claimed the maintenance of Rs.5000/- to each respondents. She specifically deposed that the petitioner has number of the immovable properties and also he is doing automobile business and earned more than Rs.3,00,000/per month. But, the petitioner disputed the same and admitted that he is earning Rs.350/-per day by running auto. But, no evidence was adduced by him to prove his correct income. Taking into consideration of the specific plea that the petitioner's family members has number of properties and they are running car
4/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
and auto, this court concurs with the quantum of monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.3000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Considering the cost of the living, paying capacity of the petitioner, educational expenditure of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the above guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the Learned Trial Judge correctly granted Rs.11,000/- as a total monthly maintenance to all the respondents.
02.07.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR
5/6
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
RJR
To
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.647 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6580 of 2024
02.07.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside the maintenance award granted in favor of the wife and minor children.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court was correct considering the parties' income and expenditure.
Whether the trial court erred in not considering the sequence of events in the marriage dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh v. NehaExplained¶39
Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sivaperumal
Valli
Minor Theivanayagi
Minor Dharmaraj
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.K.Ramakrishnan
Parties & counsel
