Dismissed¶34

P.Amaresan v. S.Sumathi @ Hemalatha

Madras HC19 Mar 2025CRL RC/178/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay refused; 1160-day delay in filing criminal revision; maintenance default by husband; M.C.No.12 of 2011, Arcot, maintenance order dated 12.08.2014 (Rs.7,000/- per month: Rs.3,000/- wife, Rs.4,000/- minor son); dismissal of delay petition by Principal District Judge, Vellore on 20.10.2022 upheld as free from perversity, illegality or infirmity; revision dismissed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.; warrant execution directed against petitioner-husband; Madras High Court, 19.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner-husband. The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed; and the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, was directed to take steps to execute the warrant against the petitioner-husband in M.C.No.12 of 2011. ¶34

P.Amaresan Vs S.Sumathi @ Hemalatha — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.178 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

Criminal Revision Case No. 178 of 2023

¶7

and Crl.M.P.No.1397 of 2023

¶8

P.Amaresan ... Petitioner

¶9

..vs..

¶10

S.Sumathi @ Hemalatha 2. Minor Promodth ... Respondents

¶11

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 20.10.2022 in Cr.M.P.No.462 of 2018 in C.R.P.No.Nil of 2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

¶15

20.10.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.No.462 of 2018 in C.R.P.No.Nil of 2018 by

¶16

the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.

¶17

According to the petitioner-husband, as against the order passed

¶18

Page No.1/6

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.178 of 2023

¶21

in M.C.No.12 of 2011, dated 12.08.2014 by the learned District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, he filed a revision petition along with the petition seeking condonation of delay, in the year 2018 before the Principal District Judge, Vellore. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 20.10.2022 dismissed the delay petition. Challenging the said dismissal order, the present revision petition is filed.

¶22

It is seen from the records that the petitioner is the husband and respondents 1 and 2 are wife and minor son of the petitioner. The first respondent-wife filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.12 of 2011 and the Court below, vide order dated 12.08.2014, allowed the said case and directed the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/per month to the respondents, out of which, Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the first respondent-wife and Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the second respondentminor son. Subsequently, the petitioner-husband filed the revision petition with a delay of 1160 days before the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire materials found that, since the petitioner purposefully failed to pay maintenance to his wife and his child for years together and also the

¶23

Page No.2/6

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.R.C.No.178 of 2023

¶26

petitioner has failed to prove the petition averments and the reasons stated by the petitioner for delay in filing the petition i.e., (i) the petitioner alone is the person to take care of his sick mother and spent his entire income for the medical expenses; and (ii) the petitioner was dismissed from his service and he has no employment and dismissed the petition on 20.10.2022.

¶27

The main contention of the petitioner-husband is that he was terminated/retrenched from service by his Company due to heavy financial loss incurred in the Company and he has not received any salary and service benefits from the concerned Company, and now, he is in an indigent position starving his livelihood along with his mother. Therefore, he was not able to file the revision petition within the limitation period and the delay in filing the revision is neither willful nor wanton. However, that may not be a reason for approaching the appellate Court with delay of 1160 days in filing the revision i.e., after 3 years.

¶28