Dismissed¶26

B.Mohan v. Malini

Madras HC5 Feb 2025CRL OP/4737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; decided 05.02.2025; Crl.O.P.No.4737 of 2024 & Crl.M.P.No.3468 of 2024; B.Mohan v. Malini; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; monthly maintenance Rs.5,000; Permanent Lok Adalat (Magalir Neethimandram, Udhagamandalam) revision Crl.RC.1/2021; Judicial Magistrate Coonoor M.C.No.5/2017; Nilgiris; wife entitled to claim maintenance at any time during her lifetime; delay of 30 years in maintenance claim; unproved marriage; dismissal.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the maintenance direction of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent as confirmed by the Courts below stands. ¶26

B.Mohan Vs Malini — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4737 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4737 of 2024 & Crl.M.P.No.3468 of 2024

¶7

B.Mohan, 64yrs, S/o.late R.Bellie, 15/148, Kasollai Village, Balacola Post, The Nilgris-643201.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

/versus/

¶10

Malini, 62yrs, D/o.Mathan, Kasollai Village, Balacola Post, The Nilgris-643201.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the order dated 20.10.2023 passed vide Crl.RC.1/2021 by Chairman/District Judge, permanent Lok Adalat (FAC) Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris confirming the order dated 29.3.2021 passed vide M.C.No.5/2017 (Unique I.D.No.0100005/2017) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Coonoor.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Sivaraj

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.4737 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

T his petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 20.10.2023 passed vide Crl.RC.1/2021 by Chairman/District Judge, permanent Lok Adalat (FAC) Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris confirming the order dated 29.3.2021 passed vide M.C.No.5/2017 (Unique I.D.No.0100005/2017) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Coonoor and thereby, ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent herein.

¶19

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has not been proven and they lived together for only three months. He further submits that after 30 years, the respondent filed a petition seeking maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent lived together for some time. However, whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is valid or not remains unclear. That apart, the wife can file for maintenance at any time during her lifetime. Whenever the wife is unable to maintain herself, she can file for maintenance against the husband.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.4737 of 2024

¶22

3. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner is the

¶23

husband of the respondent and as such, the petitioner, being the husband, is duty-bound to maintain his wife.

¶24

4. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order

¶25

passed by the Courts below.