IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.RC.No.1038 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.8810 of 2024 Sunil Kumar S/o.Late Navarathamal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Mitha Jain @ Kavitha W/o.Sunil Kumar

2. Sachi S.Jain D/o.Sunil Kumar

3. Kajal C/o.Mitha Jain Represented by Guardian Mrs.Mitha Jain ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 27.10.2023 made in M.C.No.477 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional Family Judge, Chennai, wherein the learned Judge was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to each of the respondents from 17.07.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda for Mr.Ramesh Kumar G.Chopda For Respondents : Mr.G.Kalyan Jhabhak

O R D E R

This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 27.10.2022 passed in M.C.No.477 of 2018 by the learned III Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent had married the petitioner during the subsistene of earlier marriages and from the wedlock, the second respondent, namely, Sachi S.Jain, aged about 7 years was born. The petitioner along with the respondents 1 to 3 (third respondent - Kajal born through the first husband of the first respondent) were living at Bangalore for three years and due to difference of opinion, they both seperated. Following seperation, the respondents filed M.C.No.477 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents. The trial Court after going through the records and the submissions made on both sides directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the respondents 1 to 3 from the date of the petition, i.e., 17.07.2018 and continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 5^th day of every English calender month and also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance within two months. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that the first respondent had married him during the subsistene of earlier marriages and that the third respondent was not born to him as she was born to the first respondent through her first husband with one Prakash Gandhi. In fact, in paragraph No.5 of the petition filed before the trial Court that, the first respondent herself admitted that, it was her third marriage. Even in the cross-examination, the first respondent admitted that she had married twice earlier. That apart, the first respondent has also admitted that she has received money from her earlier marriages and that the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is not legal as she has married the petitioner without resolving the first and second marriages and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has given consent to the first respondent at the time of marriage that he was ready to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the third respondent and also he has given his name as her father's name in the school Transfer Certificate and in other certificates and hence, the trial Court has awarded maintenance to the third respondent, which requires no interference from this Court. Further, the petitioner was running a jewellery shop, but he stated that, it has been closed. Admittedly, the respondent has not filed any documents before this Court to show that he has closed his jewellery shop. In the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the respondent, the trial Court has decided that the petitioner has got sufficient means and he is financially sound and capable to pay maintenance to the respondents and therefore, the trial Court rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to each of the respondents, which requires no interference from this Court. Hence, he prays for dismi