Dismissed¶42

Baskaselvan v. Amalajothi

Madras HC16 Apr 2025CRL RC(MD)/895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance arrears recovery upheld; criminal revision under Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS dismissed by Madras High Court, Madurai Bench. Husband's denial of marital relationship and illness plea rejected; Court held petitioner bounden to pay maintenance until marital tie legally broken. Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance award; Section 128 Cr.P.C. arrear enforcement; Rs.10,000/- per month maintenance; Rs.1,20,000/- arrear maintenance; Judicial Magistrate Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram; M.C.No.4 of 2018; Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024; Schedule II Cr.P.C.; 50% arrears deposit Rs.60,000/-; Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024; P.Vadamalai J.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P(MD)No.9887 of 2024) is closed. ¶42

Baskaselvan Vs Amalajothi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P(MD)No.9887 of 2024) is closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai directing payment of arrear maintenance suffers from any irregularity or illegality and should be set aside. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

This Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai; consequently the Criminal Revision Case fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is bounden to pay the maintenance until the marital tie is legally broken; his denial of the marital relationship does not absolve him.

¶38

Key takeaways

The petitioner's plea of illness and inability to work fails, as he produced no sufficient materials in support of it.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.9887 of 2024 - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (P.Vadamalai J.; pronounced 16.04.2025) - Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS - DISMISSED. The revision challenged the order dated 16.08.2024 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 in M.C.No.4 of 2018 (under S.128 Cr.P.C.), directing payment of arrear maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- (for 01.10.2020 to 31.09.2021) to the respondent on or before 03.09.2024, failing which action as per Schedule II under Cr.P.C. Background: respondent's S.125 Cr.P.C. case (M.C.No.4 of 2018) had resulted in an order dated 20.02.2020 for Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the date of petition; the petitioner paid up to 12.09.2020 following Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2021 and defaulted again. HELD: (i) the petitioner is bounden to pay maintenance until the marital tie is legally broken, notwithstanding his contention that the respondent is not his wife; (ii) he produced no sufficient materials to substantiate his plea of illness and inability to work; (iii) no irregularity or illegality exists in the impugned order. An earlier revision attempt before the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram (delay petition Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2024 in unnumbered Crl.Revision Petition /2023) had been dismissed on 05.10.2023 and was challenged in Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2023. On admission, the petitioner deposited 50% of arrears (Rs.60,000/-), withdrawn by the respondent. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; further S.128 Cr.P.C. petitions (Crl.M.P.Nos.3744-3746 of 2024) remain pending before the Magistrate.

¶1

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 22.01.2025 Pronounced on : 16.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶6

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.9887 of 2024

Baskaselvan

... Petitioner

Vs.

Amalajothi

... Respondent

PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 in M.C.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District, dated 16.08.2024 and set aside the same by allowing the revision petition.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramanathan

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 16.08.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and to set aside the same.

¶19

2.The brief facts of the case:

¶20

The respondent filed a case in M.C.No.4 of 2018 U/s.125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The case was allowed by the trial Court, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m., to the respondent from the date of filing the petition, by its order, dated 20.02.2020. As per the order, the petitioner has not paid the maintenance and on filing Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2021 by the respondent, the petitioner paid the maintenance from the date of the petition i.e., from 14.05.2018 till 12.09.2020; thereafter, he failed to pay. So, the respondent filed the petition U/s.128 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 in M.C.No.4 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvadanai. The learned Judicial Magistrate heard both side and passed order, dated 16.08.2024, directing the petitioner to pay arrear maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- from 01.10.2020 to 31.09.2021 to the respondent on or before 03.09.2024, failing which, the respondent would take further action as per Schedule II under Cr.P.C. Aggrieved

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶24

by the said order, the revision petitioner has preferred this present Criminal Revision Case.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the respondent is not his wife and hence he preferred the appeal. He would further submit that the petitioner is struggling for his self maintenance due to inability to go to work and would further submit that an ex-parte order was passed regarding maintenance as the petitioner was suffering from illness. The trial Court has not considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order, so the same may be set aside.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent filed the maintenance case in the year 2018 as she was not maintained by the petitioner as a dutiful husband. The petitioner entered appearance, and even though he filed a counter, he later remained ex-parte. After granting sufficient opportunity for hearing the petitioner, the trial Court passed the order on 20.02.2020, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance to the respondent from the date of petition. The petitioner has not paid as ordered and so, the respondent filed

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶31

Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2021 and received maintenance from the date of petition, i.e., from 14.05.2018 till 12.09.2020. Again, he committed default in payment of maintenance and so, the respondent filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 U/s.128 Cr.P.C. and obtained direction order. In spite of that the respondent has not paid any amount so far. The respondent again filed three petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.3744, 3745 and 3746 of 2024 U/s.128 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and the same are pending. To escape the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision case after the lapse of three years, which is also not maintainable.

¶32

On hearing both and on perusal of records, it is clear that the respondent has filed the maintenance case in the year 2018 against the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that she was a divorcee, a per order passed in H.M.O.P.No. 71 of 2013 on the file Sub Court, Ramanathapuram and the petitioner got married to her on 01.08.2014. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner has not maintained her and left her, and hence she filed the maintenance case. The petitioner appeared in that case through counsel and filed a counter, denying the relationship of the respondent as wife. In spite of several opportunities given, the petitioner has not availed those opportunities and hence the order was passed on 20.02.2020 directing him to pay maintenance at Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the respondent.

¶33

4/7

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶36

Now, the petitioner contends that he is not the husband of the respondent

¶37

and filed the criminal revision case. On perusal of records, the petitioner filed the criminal revision before the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram with a delay condonation petition in Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2024 in unnumbered Crl.Revision Petition /2023 and the same was dismissed on 05.10.2023. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this criminal revision case against the impugned order of direction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to pay the arrears on or before 03.09.2024. While admitting the case, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of arrears and accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs.60,000/- and the same was withdrawn by the respondent.

¶38

It is also not in dispute that the respondent has also filed the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.3744, 3745 and 3746 of 2024 U/s.128 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and the same are pending. The petitioner has not produced sufficient materials to show his illness and inability to go to work. The petitioner is bounden to pay the maintenance until the marital tie is legally broken. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. Thus, this Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

5/7

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶42

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

. 04.2025

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No VSD

¶45

¶46

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

¶47

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶48

6/7

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024

¶51

P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶52

VSD

¶53

Pre - Delivery Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.895 of 2024 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.9887 of 2024

¶54

16.04.2025

¶55

7/7

¶56

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order in Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 in M.C.No.4 of 2018 directing the petitioner to pay arrear maintenance of Rs.1,20,000/- (01.10.2020 to 31.09.2021) to the respondent on or before 03.09.2024, failing which the respondent could take further action as per Schedule II under Cr.P.C.¶20
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvadanai · 16.08.2024
Prior proceeding
Background per the respondent's case: she was a divorcee by order in H.M.O.P.No. 71 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, and married the petitioner on 01.08.2014.¶32
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed M.C.No.4 of 2018 under S.125 Cr.P.C. before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, seeking maintenance from the petitioner.¶20
Prior proceeding
Petitioner entered appearance through counsel and filed a counter denying that the respondent was his wife; despite several opportunities he did not avail them and remained ex-parte.¶32
Prior proceeding
Trial Court allowed M.C.No.4 of 2018 by order dated 20.02.2020, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the respondent from the date of filing the petition.¶20
Prior proceeding
On the respondent filing Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2021, the petitioner paid maintenance from 14.05.2018 till 12.09.2020; thereafter he again defaulted.¶20
Prior proceeding
Respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.1531 of 2024 in M.C.No.4 of 2018 under S.128 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvadanai for recovery of arrears.¶20
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had earlier filed a criminal revision before the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram with a delay condonation petition in Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2024 in unnumbered Crl.Revision Petition /2023, which was dismissed on 05.10.2023.¶37
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged that dismissal by filing Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2023, and thereafter filed the present criminal revision against the impugned order.¶37
Prior proceeding
While admitting this revision, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrears; the petitioner deposited Rs.60,000/-, which was withdrawn by the respondent.¶37
Prior proceeding
Respondent also filed further petitions Crl.M.P.Nos.3744, 3745 and 3746 of 2024 under S.128 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, which are pending; the Court records this as not in dispute.¶38

Baskaselvan v. Amalajothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baskaselvan v. Amalajothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Special Tahsildar Vs Kaliyammal (Died)

Yesupatham Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Lucka Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Priyanka Vs Ramrajan

Initha priya Vs N.Alexandar

Pooja Talir Vs Ramanath Krishnan