Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 903
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Kalyanasundaram – Petitioner
Versus
Muthanandam @ Premalatha and Another – Respondents
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 47 of 2016, Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 993 of 2016
Decided On : 10-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: D. Rameshkumar.
For the Respondent: K.K. Senthil.
The husband's admission of having sufficient means to maintain his child made him equally responsible to maintain his wife, and the court found no merit in his claim of excessive maintenance and lack of verification of his income.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case filed by the husband against the order of maintenance awarded by the trial Court in favor of the wife and son, holding that the husband's claim of excessive maintenance and lack of verification of his income was without merit.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a Criminal Revision Case against the order of maintenance awarded by the trial Court in favor of the wife and son, claiming that the maintenance amount was excessive and his income was not verified. He also alleged that the wife had forcibly taken away the child from his custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, stating that the husband's claim of excessive maintenance and lack of verification of his income was without merit. The court held that the husband, who admitted to having sufficient means to maintain his child, was equally responsible to maintain his wife.
Issues: Excessive maintenance, lack of verification of income, custody of the child
Ratio Decidendi: The husband's admission of having sufficient means to maintain his child made him equally responsible to maintain his wife. The court found no merit in the husband's claim of excessive maintenance and lack of verification of his income.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The respondents were advised to file necessary applications for enhancement of maintenance before the trial Court, if needed.
JUDGMENT :
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Family Court, Madurai in M.C. No. 6 of 2012.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the husband of the respondent as against the order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the Family Court, Madurai in M.C. No. 6 of 2012.
2. The trial Court, by order dated 24.11.2015, which is impunged in this petition, allowed the petition filed by the respondents and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the first respondent and Rs. 2,000/- p.m. to the second respondent towards monthly maintenance from January 2014 onwards. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Case on the following grounds:
(i) When the petitioner is ready to take back the child, the trial Court has not considered the same and passed the order of maintenance to the second respondent also. Therefore, the order of maintenance is highly excessive and the petitioner can afford an opportunity to provide a good education and shelter to the second respondent/child.
(ii) Though the petitioner is inclined to maintain the child, the first petitioner/wife has forcibly taken away the child from his custody and filed the maintenance case in order to harass the petitioner.
3. This Court, on 03.02.2016, while taking up this Criminal Revision Case for hearing, ordered notice to the respondents and passed an order of interim stay on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- directly to the first respondent by way of demand draft or pay order on or before 22.02.2016 and also issued a further direction to the petitioner to pay 50% of the monthly maintenance as ordered by the trial Court to the respondents on or before the 7th day of every succeeding English Calender month without fail. This Court has also directed the petitioner to file an affidavit regarding the compliance of the said condition before the Registry after serving advance copy to the respondents.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maintenance petition has been filed without filing any supporting documents for the proof of employment of the petitioner and the Court below, without ascertaining the sources of income for the petitioner, has mechanically passed the order of maintenance, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards maintenance (Rs. 3,000/- to the first respondent and Rs. 2,000/- to the second respondent). He further submits that the petitioner is also taking care of his aged parents. But, the trial Court has not taken into consideration of his liabilities towards his parents and unilaterally passed the order in favour of the respondents without considering the sources of income of this petitioner. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the respondents, the petitioner was working in a private Banian Company at Tirupur and in view of Covid-19 pandemic situation, he is not having any job to take care of himself. While so, the order of the trial Court, directing the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- is excessive.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that this Court, by order dated 03.02.2016, passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (i.e. half of the arrears of maintenance amount) directly to the first respondent by way of demand draft or pay order and also directed to pay 50% of the monthly maintenance amount as directed by the trial Court to the respondents on or before 7th day of every succeeding English Calender month. But, the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court. According to him, the petitioner has paid only up to December 2018 and thereafter, he did not pay any amount from January 2019. The petitioner is working in a dying factory at Tirupur and capable of earnin
