Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Kavitha - Petitioner
Versus
C. Prabhakar - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1120 of 2013
Decided On : 07-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Geeta Ramaseshan
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Devaraj
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Order 21,20,9 and 3 – Rule 2 -Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 125 and 128 - This Criminal Revision Case is filed by wife for enhancement of maintenance awarded by learned Judge, Family Court, in M.C.No.25 - For shake of convenience, parties are referred to as per the ranking before trial Court - Marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized , as per Hindu rites and customs - In counter, respondent/husband denied various averments and inter alia contended that revision petitioner/wife lived with him in abroad only for eight days and she deserted matrimonial home on her own accord and not entitled for any maintenance - Pending trial, respondent/husband has filed an application, being represented by his father as Power Agent, to conduct case before Family Court, which has resulted in Crl.O.P.No.2606 and this Court, after taking into consideration earlier decision of this Court in the case has allowed father of respondent/husband to represent and conduct case as respondent’s Power of Attorney subject to legal limitations - Revision petitioner/wife has further alleged that trial Court ought to have seen that in matters of marriage, issues of relationship can be spoken to only by spouses themselves and ought to have rejected evidence of father on this ground alone. – Held, this Court is of considered view that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent/husband for not producing the evidence before Court about his income to arrive at a conclusion and for awarding maintenance - Considering entirety of the circumstances of case and the employment said to have been carried on by the respondent/husband, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and proper to award a sum per month towards maintenance and the same is hereby ordered from the date of petition filed before the Family Court - Since payment out through the digital mode was not covered under the e-Court project, court of the considered view that the Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to place the above order before the Hon’ble e-Court committee of this Court for getting the administrative sanction to the District Judiciary, both Family Courts and Judicial Magistrate’s Court handily the maintenance cases filed either under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other provisions regarding maintenance, can go digital and adopt themselves as digital payment and disburse the deposited amount in Court towards maintenance to estranged wife to enhance timely justice delivery system - All Family Courts are required to adopt digital India for disbursement of award amount to enhance timely justice delivery system - Statement submitted by the Registrar General shall form part of the case records.
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem, in M.C.No.25 of 2009 dated 31.07.2013.
2. For the shake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts, which are necessary for determination of the case, are as follows:-
(i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 28.05.2007 at Sakthi Duraisamy Thirumana Mahal, Erode, as per Hindu rites and customs.
(ii) In the counter, the respondent/husband denied various averments and inter alia contended that the revision petitioner/wife lived with him in abroad (Canada) only for eight days and she deserted the matrimonial home on her own accord and not entitled for any maintenance.
(iii) Pending trial, the respondent/husband has filed an application, being represented by his father as Power Agent, to conduct the case before the Family Court, Salem, which has resulted in Crl.O.P.No.2606 of 2011 and this Court, after taking into consideration the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pavithra Vs. Rahul Raj reported in AIR 2003 Madras 138, has allowed the father of the respondent/husband to represent and conduct the case as the respondent’s Power of Attorney subject to the legal limitations.
4. During trial, the wife examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.17, while on behalf of the respondent, he has not entered into the witness box, however, his father namely, Dr. Chandrasekaran was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R.1 to R.10. After trial, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Salem, by an order dated 31.07.2013, has granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife/revision petitioner herein.
5. Seeking enhancement of the maintenance awarded as stated above, the wife has preferred this criminal revision case alleging that the trial Court erred in holding that the revision petitioner did not comply with her marital obligations and lead companionship just by considering the evidence of the father-in-law, when actually it ought to have been the respondent, who should have been cross examined in this regard. It is further alleged that the trial Court erred in holding that the revision petitioner forcibly occupied the house of the father-in-law, when she has a right to reside in the premises as a daughter-in-law and also under the various statutory provisions such as the Domestic Violence Act. Further, the trial Court erred by holding that the father of the respondent can know the entire facts of the case and hence, his evidence can be accepted to decide the issue, in the absence of the respondent, inasmuch as in matrimonial matters, spouses are the necessary parties and others can only be a witness for the same. The revision petitioner/wife has further alleged that the trial Court ought to have seen that in matters of marriage, issues of the relationship can be spoken to only by the spouses themselves and ought to have rejected the evidence of the father on this ground alone.
6. After hearing both the parties, on a perusal of records, it is seen that the respondent/husband has not appeared before the trial Court and he has entered appearance in the trial Court represented by his father as Power Agent.
7. In this case, by an order dated 04.07.2014, this Court has directed the respondent/husband to pay the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- with effect from July 2014 which shall include the amount of Rs.10,000/- already ordered to be paid.
8. After going through the evidence of P.W.1 given in the cross-examination which runs into 6 pages, the only point that is elucidated from the cross-examination of P.W.1/wife is that xxxxxx.
9. The revision petitioner/wife has spent only 8 days in the matrimonial home in Canada and due to the indifference between the parties, she has returned to India on payment of three times of the flight ticket. The cross-examination of R.W.1/father of the respo
