Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. Murali Shankar, J.
Loyola Selva Kumar – Petitioner
versus
M. Sharon Nisha and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.417 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4388 of 2021
Decided on 26.6.2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 14 and 20 – Award of maintenance – Disputed marriage – First petitioner has given evidence with regard to photographs taken at the time of their marriage and her evidence in this regard was not at all shaken during cross examination – Petitioners have proved that first petitioner and respondent were living together as husband and wife and due to their relationship, second petitioner was born to them – For the purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., first petitioner can very well be considered as wife and second petitioner as son of respondent – Finding of trial Court that petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from respondent cannot be found fault with – Considering present economic scenario and status of parties, fixation of monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- for each of respondents is very much reasonable and same cannot be said to be excessive – Impugned order affirmed. (Paras 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24 and 25)
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.26 of 2019, dated 23.03.2021 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, granting maintenance.
2. The first respondent, alleging that the marriage between her and the revision petitioner was solemnized on 26.01.2018 at the petitioner’s parents home, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli and due to their wedlock, the second respondent was born to them; has filed an application claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner has filed counter statement disputing the very marriage and also the paternity to the second respondent and consequently, liability to pay maintenance.
3. During enquiry, the first respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The revision petitioner has examined himself as R.W.1 and exhibited one document as Ex.R.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, upon considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order, dated 23.03.2021, holding that the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents and directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance for each of the respondents from the date of filing of the petition and the maintenance amount should be paid on or before 5th of every English Calender Month and further directed the revision petitioner to pay the entire arrears of maintenance amount within one month from the date of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present revision.
4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.
5. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner’s parents have given 200 sovereigns of gold jewels, 11 sovereigns of gold minor chain, 5 sovereigns of gold bracelet and one sovereign gold ring were given as dowry as demanded; that they have also provided house hold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- as demanded by the respondent’s parents; that the second petitioner was born on 14.10.2018 at Annai Velankanni Hospital, Palayamkottai; that though the respondent was very much affectionate towards the first petitioner initially, due to ill advice of his parents, he started to demand Rs.25 lakhs as dowry; that since the first petitioner failed to fulfill his obligation, the respondent started to avoid the first petitioner by all means; that the first petitioner tolerated all the harassments made by him and his parents considering the future of her marital life; that the petitioner went for her delivery to her parents home in the month of April 2018; that subsequently the respondent avoided the petitioner and failed to maintain her; that though the birth of the second petitioner was informed to the respondent immediately, he has come to the Hospital only after five days; that when the first petitioner asked the respondent as to why he was avoiding her, for which, the respondent openly stated that without giving Rs.25 lakhs as additional dowry, he will not live together with the first petitioner and that because of the act of the respondent , the petitioners are living separately and struggling for their livelihood.
6. It is their further case that the respondent is working in ATG Tyre company, Gangaikondan as Supervisor and is getting more than Rs.50,000/- as monthly salary; that the respondent owns 11 houses in Sankar Nagar and he is getting more than Rs.90,000/- per month as rent and that since the respondent is legally bounded to maintain the petitioners, the respondent is liable to pay monthly maintenance.
7. The defence of the respondent is of total denial. The respondent has disputed the very marriage between him and the first petitioner and the paternity to the second petitioner. It is the further case of the r
Strict proof of marriage is not required in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the importance of proving the relationship between the parties and the birth of the child in maintenance cases, applying a broad interpretation of the term 'wife' and considering....
The legal principle established is that a husband has a duty to maintain his wife and children, and failure to provide adequate evidence of financial hardship can result in the court awarding mainten....
The husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and children, regardless of his employment status, to prevent destitution.
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of financial incapacity must be supported by credible evidence; failure to do so can result in t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
