ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed by husband of the first Respondent herein/Respondent in the case in M.C.No.14 of 2019 seeking to quash the Petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Thittakudi.

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is the husband of the first Respondent and father of the second Respondent who is their minor daughter. During the period when they were cohabiting in the matrimonial house, the second Respondent was born to the Petitioner and the first Respondent.

3.Subsequently, when the first Respondent developed an adulterous relationship with one Sivakumar and the Petitioner came to know about it, he had filed H.M.O.P. No.828 of 2018 before the learned Family Court, Chennai. The Petitioner preferred a Petition before the learned Family Court and adduced evidence. The person who is alleged to be in adulterous relationship with the first Respondent is impleaded as second Respondent in the H.M.O.P. No.828 of 2018. The learned Counsel engaged by the second Respondent in the said H.M.O.P. filed counter but did not cross examine the Petitioner. Also, the Respondents 1 and 2 in H.M.O.P. No.828 of 2018 did not appear before the learned Family Court, Chennai. The learned Judge, Family Court, Chennai, had passed an order in H.M.O.P. No.828 of 2018 on

23.01.2020 as ex-parte decree of divorce.

4.When the matter stood thus, the first Respondent herein had filed Maintenance Case before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi in M.C.No.14 of 2019 suppressing the vital fact that H.M.O.P.No.828 of 2018 was decreed ex-parte against her on the ground of adultery. After receiving summons from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, the Petitioner herein as Respondent in the Maintenance Case No. 14 of 19 engaged Counsel and filed counter elaborately stating the fact of filing of the H.M.O.P. No.828 of 2018 before the learned Family Court and the fact of grant of decree on the ground of adultery. The first Respondent has sought maintenance from the Petitioner for herself and the minor child. Since the Family Court had granted ex-parte decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, considering the interest of the second Respondent/minor child, the Petitioner had filed Original Petition under Guardians and Wards Act, 1889 before the original side of the High Court in which also, the first Respondent had appeared as Respondent No.1 and cross examined the Petitioner, who had let no evidence. In spite of several chances, the first Respondent has not cross examined. Subsequently, the first Respondent filed Petition seeking permission for cross examination. The same was allowed on cost of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks to quash the maintenance case as the first Respondent is not entitled to make any claim. Regarding the claim of maintenance of the second Respondent/minor child, the Petitioner had already filed a Petition seeking custody of minor child and it is pending with the original side of this Court.

5.In spite of affording several opportunities, the Respondents did not appear and advance arguments even though notice was served on them in the Criminal Original Petition. Therefore, based on the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court proceeds to dispose of this Criminal Original Petition.

6.Considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the records, when the Petitioner had obtained a decree of divorce against the first Respondent/wife on the ground of adultery in H.M.O.P.No.828 of 2018, subsequently, the Petitioner/Husband had filed O.P.No.638 of 2020 under Sections 24 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the minor child/second Respondent before this Court and the same is pending. The maintenance case preferred by the first Respondent/wife of this