SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 2062

High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J
A. Abdul Gafoor
Versus
N. Akhila & Another
CRL. R.C. NO. 291 OF 2011 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2011
Decided on : 26-04-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C. Deivasigamani, Advocate.

The need for the quantum of maintenance to be decided on merits before making a final determination.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - Section 498A, 406, 506(ii) of IPC - Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a maintenance case for herself and her minor child, alleging ill-treatment, cruelty, and harassment by the revision petitioner and his family members. The court directed the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance, which was contested by the revision petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the quantum of maintenance had not been decided on merits and directed the Family Judge to decide the main case within two months. In the meantime, the revision petitioner was ordered to pay interim maintenance to the respondents.

Issues: Maintenance, Ill-treatment, Cruelty, Harassment, Quantum of Maintenance

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the quantum of maintenance to be decided on merits and directed the Family Judge to do so within a specified timeframe.

Final Decision: The revision was disposed of with the observation that the Family Judge should decide the main case on merits within two months, and the revision petitioner was ordered to pay interim maintenance to the respondents until then.

ORDER

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case for her minor child and herself in C.C.No.217 of 2009, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent / husband married her 06.01.2005, in the presence of elders, as per Islamic Rights and Customs, at Coimbatore. At the time of marriage, the respondent's parents had given 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the revision petitioner / husband. Besides this, valuable sarees, cloths and furniture were given. The respondent further stated that out of wedlock, she gave birth to a female child on 08.11.2005, who is the second respondent herein. Immediately after marriage, the respondent led her marital life at the matrimonial home along with the revision petitioner herein. After a few days, the respondent/husband and his family members had demanded money as dowry. At the time of marriage negotiation, the revision petitioner and his parents had told the respondent and her parents that the revision petitioner was working at Saudi Arabia and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent came to know that the above statements was a false one and also came to know that the revision petitioner herein is earning only Rs.7,500/- per month.

2. The respondent further stated that she was unable to tolerate the ill-treatment, cruelty and harassment caused by therevision petitioner and his family members. Hence, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and joined with her parents. Thereafter, mediation was conducted for reunion but it was in vain. The respondent had levelled a case against the revision petitioner before the All Women Wing Police Station, Coimbatore. The said case was registered in Crime No.32 of 2009, for the offence under Section 498A, 406, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, the respondent herein had claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- as monthly maintenance against her husband, i.e., revision petitioner since he is doing business in scrap and old iron and as such he is earning Rs.35,000/- per month.

3. The revision petitioner / husband had filed counter statement and denied the allegations made in the maintenance case by his wife / respondent. The revision petitioner has admitted that the second (minor) respondent was born to him on 08.11.2005. However, he has denied that seethana ornaments viz., 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-had been given to him. The revision petitioner had also denied the allegation that he and his family members treated the respondent herein cruelly. The revision petitioner had lived with his wife only for 45 days. Thereafter, he had left for Saudi Arabia. Again he had come to India on 17.09.2007. Therefore, the allegation levelled against him and his family members are totally false.

4. While the case is pending on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, the respondent / wife had filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.134 of 2010 for interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month, pending disposal of the main case, since she and her daughter are struggling for their day to day livelihood. The said interim application had been resisted by the revision petitioner herein.

5. On considering the averments of both the parties and on verifying the relevant records and on hearing the submission made by both the parties, the learned judge had held that the revision petitioner had earned a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. Therefore, the learned judge directed the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month to the first and second respondents herein and apportioned a sum of Rs.3,000/-and Rs.1,000/- respectively to the first and second respondent.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the above revision.

7. When the matter came up for admission on 28.02.2011, this Court had imposed a condition o





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top