K.P.Sindhu v. K.Sasikumar

Madras HC17 Apr 2025CRL RC/943/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, 17.04.2025, Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup J — Crl.R.C.Nos.943 & 946/2021 (Ss.397, 401 Cr.P.C.): revisions by wife and two children against dismissal of interim-maintenance and education-fee applications (Crl.M.P.Nos.1847 & 1848/2021) pending M.C.No.30/2020, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. Held: order not perverse, proper and well reasoned; presumption of joint property from husband's remittances and rent enjoyment by wife/children; both revisions dismissed; M.C. to be disposed within three months. No monetary relief granted.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; both revision petitions dismissed, with a direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram to dispose of M.C.No.30 of 2020 preferably within three months. ¶result-para

K.P.Sindhu Vs K.Sasikumar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; both revision petitions dismissed, with a direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram to dispose of M.C.No.30 of 2020 preferably within three months.

¶result-para

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1847 and 1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, is to be set aside as perverse?

¶point

Court's answer

Since neither side adduced evidence or marked documents, this Court holds the Trial Court's dismissal of both miscellaneous petitions proper and well reasoned; the impugned order cannot be found fault with and is not perverse.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The husband's unemployment after 26 years of work in the Gulf countries was found acceptable; the Court drew the presumption that the joint-name properties were purchased out of the husband's remittances, and that the wife and children residing nearby would be receiving the rents.

¶12

Key takeaways

Where parties assert rival facts only through arguments without oral evidence or documents, those assertions stand undisputed until tested in enquiry, so an interlocutory order passed on arguments alone may or may not be correct until the main case is disposed of.ratio¶12
The point for consideration was answered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent; the impugned order was found proper requiring no interference by this Court.ratio¶13
Both the Criminal Revision Petitions (Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021) were dismissed in the result.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.), 17.04.2025 — Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021 under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.: wife K.P.Sindhu and her two children challenged the order dated 26.10.2021 of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram dismissing (i) Crl.M.P.No.1847 of 2021 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for the wife, Rs.15,000/- each for the children and Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses, and (ii) Crl.M.P.No.1848 of 2021 seeking reimbursement of 2019 college/school fees totalling Rs.2,48,565/- plus Rs.2,50,000/- towards fees for 2021-2022, both applications having been filed pending M.C.No.30 of 2020. Held: no documents were marked and no evidence adduced by either side, the matter resting on oral enquiry alone; the husband's unemployment after 26 years' work in the Gulf countries was found acceptable; presumption was drawn that the joint-name properties were purchased out of his remittances and that the wife and children residing nearby receive the rents; the Magistrate's dismissal was accordingly proper, well reasoned and not perverse, and the point was answered against the petitioners. Both revision petitions dismissed; the Magistrate was directed to dispose of M.C.No.30 of 2020 preferably within three months. Notice to the respondent had returned 'Unclaimed'; no counsel appeared for him. No precedents were cited or relied upon.

¶1

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

Criminal Revision Case Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.943 of 2021

¶8

K.P.Sindhu

¶9

Ashwin Sasikumar

¶10

Minor Ardhra Sasikumar Represented by her mother and natural guardian K.P.Sindhu, the first Petitioner. ... Petitioners

Versus

K.Sasikumar

... Respondent

Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1847 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and direct the Respondent to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the first Petitioner and Rs.15,000/- each to the second and third Petitioners till the disposal of M.C.No.30 of 2020.

¶15

Crl.R.C.No.946 of 2021

¶16

K.P.Sindhu

¶17

Ashwin Sasikumar

¶18

Minor Ardhra Sasikumar Represented by her mother and natural guardian K.P.Sindhu, the first Petitioner. ... Petitioners

¶19

1/10

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

K.Sasikumar

Versus

... Respondent

Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and direct the Respondent to pay the School fees to the third Petitioner and college fees to the second Petitioner till he completes his course.

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr.T.K.S. Bharathy Anandraj in both cases For Respondent : No appearance in both cases

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

In view of the issues involved in both the Criminal Revision Cases are

¶29

one and the same, both the cases are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order.

¶30

Criminal Revision Case No.943 of 2021 had been filed to set aside

¶31

the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1847 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and direct the Respondent to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the first Petitioner and Rs.15,000/- each to the second and third Petitioners till the

¶32

2/10

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶35

disposal of M.C.No.30 of 2020.

¶36

Criminal Revision Case No.946 of 2021 had been filed to set aside the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and direct the Respondent to pay the School fees to the third Petitioner and college fees to the second Petitioner till he completes his course.

¶37

The first Petitioner is the wife of the Respondent herein. She had filed maintenance case in M.C.No.30 of 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. Pending maintenance case, she had filed Crl.M.P.No.1847 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for herself and Rs.15,000/- each for her children/second and third Petitioners and also Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. She had also filed Crl.M.P.No.1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 seeking reimbursement of College and School fees paid in 2019 to her two children viz., the second and third Petitioners for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.38,565/- respectively totalling Rs.2,48,565/- to the Petitioners and the Respondent also be directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards College and School fees for the year 2021-2022.

¶38

After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the

¶39

3/10

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶42

Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent in both the petitions, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, by order dated 26.10.2021 dismissed both the Crl.M.P.Nos.1847 and 1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020.

¶43

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1847 and 1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, these Criminal Revision Cases had been filed.

¶44

Notice sent to the Respondent was returned with an endorsement “Unclaimed”. Still the Court wanted to verify whether any Counsel is filing vakalath on behalf of the Respondent and adjourned the case for two or three hearings. Subsequently, the case was reserved for orders.

¶45

Point for consideration:

¶46

Whether the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1847 and 1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, is to be set aside as perverse?

¶47

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶48

4/10

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶52

Perused the order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1847

¶53

and 1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

¶54

On perusal of the orders dated 26.10.2021, it is found that no documents were marked on the side of both parties and only after hearing the arguments, the learned Judge had dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions observing that the claim of the first Petitioner/wife of the Respondent that the property purchased by the farther of the wife, who was a retired Bank official, in the name of the daughter whereas the husband/son-in-law demanded that the property shall be registered in the joint name of the wife and husband. Accordingly, the property was purchased. Now, the husband is insisting the wife to sign a document for sale of the property as he is in dire need of money, for which, the wife refused which is the reason for the dispute between the husband and wife. Therefore, she had filed maintenance case seeking maintenance from the husband. In the counter, the husband had disputed the claim of the wife, the Petitioner in M.C.No.30 of 2020, stating that the husband was employed in the Gulf countries, his earnings was utilised to purchase the property in the joint name of husband and wife and from the property purchased by the wife, they are in receipt of monthly rents. Therefore, after 26 years of work in the Gulf countries, now he is unemployed. Therefore, he 5/10

¶55

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

¶56

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶57

sought sale of the property, for which, the wife was not amenable. Considering the rival claims, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, had observed that the husband disputed the claim of maintenance and the claim of payment of College and School fees of the children of the first Petitioner and the Respondent. The husband disputed the claim stating that he is unemployed and the wife is in receipt of the rents from the buildings/property purchased in the joint name of the wife and husband. It is the observation of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, in the counter when the Respondent/husband claims such fact, the wife had not disputed it by filing rejoinder. Therefore, it is presumed that the wife is in enjoyment of the rent. On that ground, both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1847 and 1847 of 2021 were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.

¶58

The wife, who is the first Petitioner in Maintenance Case No.30 of 2020 as well as in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1847 and 1847 of 2021 seeks to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and order interim maintenance and educational fees of the children.

¶59

Considering the fact that in both the petitions, the parties to the petitions had not adduced any evidence, not marked any documents, only based on the oral enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram had passed 6/10

¶60

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

¶61

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶62

orders. When the husband is unemployed after 26 years of work in Gulf countries, the same is found acceptable. There is presumption that based on the remittance of the husband, the properties were purchased in the joint name of the husband and wife. When the husband is employed in Gulf countries and the properties having been purchased in the name of the husband and wife, naturally, the wife and children residing in Chennai nearer to the property purchased by them will be in lie of the rent from the building or property in the joint name of the husband and wife. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, cannot be found fault. It is not perverse.

¶63

It is found to be well reasoned order. Until and otherwise oral evidence is taken and recorded, the facts stated by both parties cannot be disputed. The facts stated by one party when disputed by other party had to be tested during enquiry by filing evidence till such time the order passed based on arguments may or may not be correct. Considering the fact that the maintenance case itself is ripe for disposal, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram as it is found to be proper and well reasoned judgment.

¶64

In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered against the Petitioners and in favour of the Respondent. The orders dated 26.10.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1847 and 1848 of 2021 in M.C.No.30 7/10

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶67

of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, is found proper which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶68

In the result, both the Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, is directed to dispose of the Maintenance Case No.30 of 2020 at the earliest preferably within a reasonable period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order or from the date of uploading of this order on the website of this Court.

¶69

17.04.2025

¶70

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order srm

¶71

8/10

¶72

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

¶73

Crl.R.C.Nos.943 and 946 of 2021

¶74

¶75