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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
P.S. Giridharan – Petitioner
Versus
Chitra – Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 1182 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2015
Decided On : 14-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Mani.
For the Respondent: V. Krishnan, N. Rajavadivelu.

IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not barred by the grant of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act if the husband neglects to maintain the wife.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision Case - Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act - [Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. The interpretation of these provisions was crucial in determining the entitlement of the wife to maintenance and the impact of the husband's actions on the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, dated 04.04.2013 made in Crl.M.P.No.98 of 2012 in M.C.No.24 of 2011.)

1. The petitioner is husband and respondent is wife. The respondent/wife filed petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.12,000/-, in which the learned Magistrate ordered Rs.8000/- as interim maintenance, against which, the husband filed present revision.

2. The case of the respondent/wife is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 27.11.2009 at Sri Sumathy Kalyana Mandapam, Trichy, and due to misunderstanding the petitioner and the respondent living separately. The respondent/wife filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.346 of 2010 and got the decree of divorce and since the petitioner/husband is a man of means and he neglected to maintain his wife, the wife has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.12,000/- and she also filed a miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.98 of 12. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties, ordered a sum of Rs.8,000/- as interim maintenance and challenging the same, the husband is before this Court with the present criminal revision case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband would submit that the respondent/wife had a petition in H.M.O.P.No.346 of 2010 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce, in which she also filed an application in I.A.No.125 of 2011 seeking interim maintenance and she had already been granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- p.m. by the Subordinate Judge in the said application. Therefore the respondent/wife is not entitled to invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/wife filed petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, which is pending, and she is already getting maintenance of Rs.12,000/- and erroneously ordered Rs.8,000/- as interim maintenance, which cannot be permitted in law.

3.1 The learned counsel would further submit that it is settled law that the provision for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and it is subject to the orders of the Civil Court and in this case as the Civil Court in H.M.O.P.No.346 of 2010 has already granted maintenance the respondent/wife, there is no question of invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence the order of interim maintenance by the learned Magistrate is wrong and amounts to double maintenance to the respondent/wife.

3.2 Further the learned counsel would submit that petitioner/husband lost his job because of the attitude of the respondent/wife and the learned Magistrate failed to note that the respondent was employed and was earning huge salary and she did not even bother to see the petitioner's inability.

3.3 Section 125 Cr.P.C. is very clear that the husband having sufficient means neglected to maintain his wife and if the wife is unable to maintain herself, then the wife is entitled to get maintenance from the husband. But, in this case, the respondent/wife is able to maintain herself and she already got order of maintenance in the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Magistrate failed to consider all these aspects and erroneously granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- once again, which is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would submit that the wife getting maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not a bar to invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/husband is a man of means and he neglected his wife to maintain and driven the respondent/wife out from the matrimonial home and since the wife unable to maintain herself, she filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and when the main case is pending, in order to get interim maintenance, she file

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top