Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar —Petitioner
versus
Aarti —Respondent
Crl. R.C. No.1015 of 2016
Decided on 22.6.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s. C.M. Krishnakumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep S. Shah for M/s. Samir S. Shah
IMPORTANT POINT
The provision of maintenance provided under section 125 CrPC is neither penal nor compulsory, but is to be decided in the light of the financial capacity of the wife to maintain herself.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Award of maintenance of Rs. 55,000/- p.m. in favour of wife and her two minor daughters—Revision—Whether sufficiently earning wife is entitled for a monthly maintenance as a matter of right?—Maintenance petition primarily projected the financial capacity of the revision petitioner rather than describing the respondent’s incapacity and inability to maintain her—1st respondent wife was drawing a salary which was higher in Quantum than that of the revision petitioner—Impugned order was liable to be set aside—Maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- each for two minor daughters awarded. (Paras 28 to 35)
Result: Petition allowed.
M.V. Muralidaran, J.—The instant criminal revision petition is preferred as against the order dated 09.02.2016 made in M.C.No.75 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court at Chennai. The petitioner herein aggrieved over the order stated above passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. directing him to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- as monthly maintenance towards the first respondent wife namely Aarti and the minor children Tarini and minor Shivani respondents 2 and 3 respectively, is before this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Petition.
2. The brief facts required for disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition is as following that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 18.08.1996. Out of their wedlock they had begotten two female children the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein. Unfortunately their matrimonial life went miserable and out of the same a petition for dissolution of their marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed by the 1st respondent in O.P.No.1189 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court at Chennai. While so, the first respondent contending that she is unable to maintain herself and the minor children, came up with the above M.C.No.75 of 2012 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the respondents.
3. The first and foremost contention of the 1st respondent in the above maintenance petition is that the revision petitioner despite being financially sound but failed to maintain the respondents. The revision petitioner failed to lend financial assistance to the respondents. Therefore with no other go, the 1st respondent was forced to file the above maintenance case seeking an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month to the respondents jointly and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation charges.
4. The said petition was resisted by the revision petitioner opposing that the claim of the 1st respondent is liable to be rejected on the ground that she is a working woman drawing a salary of above Rs.35,000/- per month. The claim of the 1st respondent is vexatious, unreasonable and the same is liable to be rejected both on legal and factual grounds. The Learned Trial Judge dealing with the claim of the 1st respondent was pleased to order an amount of Rs.55,000/- as monthly maintenance from the date of the maintenance petition i.e. 28.01.2012 by his order dated 09.02.2016.
5. At the outset, on appraisal of the case records it is seen that the either parties to this petition have filed several interlocutory applications claiming for reliefs in one way or another. On bare perusal of the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st respondent, this Court is able to see that in the petition it is focused that the revision petitioner to be a person of sound financial capacity, besides holding valuable assets. It is obvious to see the petition primly projects the financial capacity of the revision petitioner rather than describing the respondent’s incapacity and inability to maintain her.
6. The record further reveal that the 1st respondent at the time of filing the maintenance case was employed in Jet Airways company receiving more than Rs.20,000/- as salary, even as per the averments made in para-18 of the maintenance petition. It is noticed that during the pendency of the maintenance case, the 1st respondent secured a job under Kothari Petro Chemicals Ltd., with salary of more than Rs.35,990/- p.m. To substantiate the same Exhibit-R7 marked, viz. copy of appointment order dated 02.09.2011 issued by the management of Kothari Petro Chemicals Ltd. Further, it appears that the 1st respondent was in employment under jet airways till 02.07.2011 and after a 3 month notice period she accommodated herself on 02.09.2011 under Kothari Petro Chemicals Ltd.
7. At this juncture it is seen that the 1st respondent has filed an application for interim maint
