Dismissed¶46

K.Purushothaman v. Suseela

Madras HC25 Mar 2025CRL RC/561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance revision dismissed - Crl.RC.No.561 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Justice P.Velmurugan, decided 25.03.2025. Husband's revision under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. against maintenance order dated 22.03.2019 in M.C.No.570 of 2010, V Additional Family Court, Chennai (Rs.1,500/- per month to wife; Rs.2,000/- per month to minor child; Section 125 Cr.P.C.). Held: no interference warranted; admitted income Rs.15,000/- but driver could earn Rs.50,000/-; no affidavit of assets and liability or income proof filed; wife's means not established; combined Rs.3,500/- maintenance observed as very meagre. Petitioner's counsel: Mr.J.William Shakesphere; no appearance recorded for respondent.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court.

K.Purushothaman Vs Suseela — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.RC.No.561 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.03.2025

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.RC.No.561 of 2024

¶6

K.Purushothaman ... Petitioner

Vs.

Suseela

... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 22.03.2019 in M.C.No.570 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.J.William Shakesphere For Respondent : Not ready in notice

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner to set aside

¶14

the order dated 22.03.2019 in M.C.No.570 of 2010 on the file of the V

¶15

Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.RC.No.561 of 2024

¶19

The respondent who is the wife of the petitioner, along with the minor

¶20

child filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.570 of 2010 on the file of the V

¶21

Additional Family Court, Chennai. The learned Judge, Family Court, after enquiry, ordered maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor child. Aggrieved by the order of

¶22

maintenance, the petitioner/husband has filed the present revision.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the

¶24

petitioner is working as a driver and earning Rs.15,000/-, earlier, the petitioner

¶25

filed a petition for divorce in which ex-parte order was passed. Subsequently,

¶26

the same was set aside. Once again the respondent allowed the Court to pass ex-parte order and subsequent to the ex-parte order, the petitioner got second marriage and also begotten a child and that the petitioner has to take care of them besides his age old parents. Further, the respondent left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and therefore, she is not entitled to

¶27

maintenance. The respondent/wife is a hale and healthy person and she is a 2/5

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.RC.No.561 of 2024 woman of means and therefore, she can maintain herself. However, the Family

¶30

Court failed to consider the same and passed the order of maintenance which is

¶31

liable to be set aside.

¶32

The matter is pending for more than one year without even service of

¶33

notice. However, since the case is arising out of maintenance case filed by the wife along with the infant child in the year 2010, considering the scope and object of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the pathetic situation of the respondent/wife and child, this Court is inclined to dispose of this case by

¶34

perusing the records.

¶35

It is admitted that the petitioner is working as a driver. Though the

¶36

admitted income of the petitioner is Rs.15,000/-, as on date, as a driver, the

¶37

petitioner could definitely earn Rs.50,000/-, but the petitioner has not filed any affidavit of assets and liability statement and also not filed any income proof. Further, the petitioner has not established that the respondent/wife is a woman

¶38

of means and she is able to maintain herself and the minor child. The 3/5

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.RC.No.561 of 2024 maintenance case was filed by the respondent/wife in they year 2010 while her

¶41

child was infant and now the child must be 13 to 14 years old. Therefore, the

¶42

order of maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to the wife and child is very meagre while

¶43

considering the cost of living prevailing as on date and it is difficult to