Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Tekepat Satish Chandra Menon & Others - Appellant
Versus
Asha Panickar & Others - Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos. 743, 1273 & 1274 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Maintenance - Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - [M.C.No.90 of 2012] - The court considered the entitlement of the mother and son for maintenance, and the claim for medical expenses. The court held that the mother, living separately by mutual consent, is not entitled to maintenance. The son, being a special child, was entitled to maintenance from the father, and the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Trial Court was upheld. The claim for medical expenses of Rs.5.8 crores was rejected as the surgery was not essential, and the father's capacity to afford such expenses was not proven.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a divorced couple and their special child. The mother sought maintenance for herself and the son, along with medical expenses for the son's treatment in the USA. The father contested the claims, citing the mutual consent judgment and his financial capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mother, living separately by mutual consent, was not entitled to maintenance. However, the son, being a special child, was entitled to maintenance from the father. The claim for medical expenses of Rs.5.8 crores was rejected as the surgery was not essential, and the father's capacity to afford such expenses was not proven.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of the mother and son for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and the validity of the claim for medical expenses for the son's treatment in the USA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the mutual consent judgment and the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. to determine the entitlement of the mother for maintenance. The court also considered the necessity of the child and the father's capacity to pay while determining the quantum of maintenance for the son. The rejection of the claim for medical expenses was based on the lack of essential need for the surgery and the absence of proof regarding the father's capacity to afford such expenses.
Final Decision: All three Revision Cases were dismissed, upholding the maintenance for the son and rejecting the claim for medical expenses.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Crl.R.C.No.743 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 24.01.2022 made in M.C.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional Family Court, Chennai by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
Crl.R.C.No.1273 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the dismissal of the claim in respect of directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5.80 crores for medical treatment, surgery in Cleveland Clinic USA made in M.P.No.495 of 2021 in M.C.No.90 of 2012, dated 24.01.2022 passed by the I Additional Family Court at Chennai and thereby allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
Crl.R.C.No.1274 of 2022: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.90 of 2012 dated 24.01.2022 passed by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and allow the prayer sought for in the M.C.No.90 of 2012 and thereby allow this Criminal revision Petition.)
Common Order:
1. Crl.R.C.No.743 of 2022 is filed by Tekepat Satish Chandra Menon, former husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent, aggrieved by the order of the learned I Additional Family Court, dated 24.01.2022 in M.C.No.90 of 2012, in and by which, while denying two reliefs i.e., the relief of payment of monthly maintenance to the first respondent and the relief of payment of a sum of Rs.5.8 crores for medical treatment, surgery in Cleveland Clinic, USA to the second respondent, the Trial Court had ordered a monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the second respondent, son of the petitioner herein.
2. Aggrieved by the denial of the two reliefs as stated above, the first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.743 of 2022, namely Asha Panickar, had filed Crl.R.C.Nos.1273 and 1274 of 2022 respectively. As such, all the three Revision Cases are taken up together and disposed off by this common judgment. To avoid any confusion, the parties, namely Tekepat Satish Chandra Menon, is referred to as 'the father'; Asha Panickar is referred to as 'the mother'; Uday Krishnan Menon, represented by his mother and natural guardian, is referred to as 'the son'.
3. A perusal of the records of this case, the marriage took place on 11.02.1985. On 21.12.1984, the son was born. However, the son is a special child, suffering from epilepsy/refractory seizure disorder. He is a slow learner and has adjustmental difficulties and has temper tantrums etc. While so, on account of the differences that have arisen in the marital life of the parties, they filed F.C.O.P.No.1821 of 2004 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and by a judgment, dated 10.02.2005, the Principal Family Court, Chennai granted a decree of divorce. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"The 1st Petitioner is permitted to have the custody of son Udaya Krishna Menon. The 2nd petitioner is permitted to visit the son. If she desires to have the custody of son in future, he has agreed to give the son's custody and shall pay Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance. The 1st petitioner has entrusted the Life Insurance Corporation Policies (360266170, 360266171, 360266172, 360266173 and 710173329) to the 2nd petitioner and she shall receive the amount on maturity of the said policies. The 2nd petitioner shall pay the premium if there is any default. Both the petitioners have agreed that they will not make any claim including maintenance against each other in future. Both the petitioners have already exchanged their articles given at the time of their marriage.
I hold that the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs and the statements made in the petition are true and this petition for divorce by mutual consent has to be allowed.
In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage solemnized between the petitioners on 11.2.85 is ordered to be dissolved by a decree of d
The main legal point established is that under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a spouse who is capable of maintaining themselves may be denied maintenance allowance, but the responsibi....
A father is liable to maintain his minor son even though the son is in the custody of the mother, and the father cannot impose a condition requiring the child to come and live with him.
The judgment emphasizes the duty to prevent destitution and vagrancy, the need for evidence to establish income, and the balancing of interests and financial capacity in determining maintenance under....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a divorced wife to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consideration of the husband's financ....
A wife can claim maintenance despite earning, and an unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance until marriage, irrespective of majority status.
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
