Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judge, J
Revision Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
first Respondent – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case | M.C.No.86 of 2018
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a wife who sought maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming Rs.30,000/- per month. The Family Court initially awarded Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.15,000/- to the child, but this order was challenged and ultimately set aside by the higher court (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The marriage was an arranged one, performed in 2013, with the wife residing in Bengaluru where she was employed as a Professor or Lecturer, earning approximately Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month, and the husband earning a significantly higher income (Rs.1,25,000/- salary plus income from agricultural and residential properties) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The wife delivered a child in 2015 and alleged that the husband failed to support her and the child despite his higher income. The husband contested the maintenance claim, citing her employment, alleged desertion, and her conduct, including living separately without sufficient cause (!) (!) .
The husband’s defense included asserting that the wife was employed and capable of earning, and that her living separately was without sufficient cause, thus invoking the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., which denies maintenance if the wife lives separately without sufficient reason (!) .
The Family Court’s order was based on presumptions regarding the income of both parties, as neither party produced concrete proof of their actual earnings. The court ordered Rs.5,000/- to the wife and Rs.15,000/- to the child, considering the temporary nature of their employment and the capacity of the husband to pay (!) (!) .
The higher court found the Family Court’s order to be perverse, emphasizing that the wife was employed and capable of earning, and that her living separately without sufficient cause was not justified. Therefore, the order granting Rs.5,000/- to the wife was set aside (!) (!) .
The court noted that the wife admitted her employment as a Professor but denied earning Rs.25,000/-. The court inferred that she was capable of earning more, considering her qualification and the standard pay for such positions, making her not entitled to maintenance (!) (!) .
The court also considered the ongoing divorce proceedings filed by the husband, which were withdrawn and transferred, indicating strained relations and supporting the conclusion that the wife’s separation was without sufficient cause (!) .
The court highlighted that the husband was willing to provide for the child’s maintenance and education, and that the order of Rs.5,000/- to the wife was unreasonable and unjustified based on the evidence and legal standards (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the revision petition was allowed, and the order granting maintenance to the wife was set aside as perverse, reaffirming that a wife living separately without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance under the relevant legal provisions (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage and maintenance context established. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the revision petitioner. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. counterarguments from the respondent's counsel. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and legal standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusion regarding maintenance order and its implications. (Para 14) |
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case had been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.06.2020 passed in M.C.No.86 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Namakkal.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision, are as follows:-
2.1. The maintenance case in M.C.No.86 of 2018 had been filed by the wife/first Respondent herein. As per the averments in the petition for maintenance, the marriage between the first Petitioner and the Respondent was an arranged marriage performed by the elders of both families and the marriage was performed on 11.09.2013 at Shri Palaniappa Kalyana Mandapam, Ottanchathiram, Dharapuram Road at Ottanchatram. After the marriage, the first Petitioner/wife and the Respondent/husband was residing at Bengaluru where the Respondent/husband was employed as a Software Engineer in McAfee Software (India) Private Ltd., Spaces Fairway, Fairway Business Park, Survey Nos.10/1, 11/2 and 12/2B of Chalaghutta Village, Next to Embassy Golf Links, Domlur, Bengaluru – 560 071, Karnataka.
2.2. In the course of the matrimonial life, the first Petitioner/wife became pregnant. In the seventh month of pregnancy, as per the customary practice between the spouses, the elders of both the families performed Valaikappu Ceremony at Bengaluru. After the Valaikappu Ceremony, the first Petitioner/wife was taken to her parental house by her parents. On 08.09.2015 she delivered a female child/second Petitioner. The child was named as Harsha Miruthula. As per the petition averments in M.C.No.86 of 2018, the birth of the child was informed to the Respondent/husband and in-laws by the family of the first Petitioner/wife, however, none of them visited the child. The parents of the first Petitioner/wife are daily wage labourers and with great difficulty, they are maintaining their daughter and granddaughter. Whereas the Respondent/husband is working as a Software Engineer and earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month. The Respondent/husband is having agricultural lands and buildings and through which, the Respondent/husband and his family earns not less than Rs.5,00,000/- per month apart from the salary drawn by the Respondent/husband. Still the Respondent/husband failed to maintain the Petitioners/wife and the child. Therefore, the wife had filed M.C.No.86 of 2018 seeking Rs.30,000/- per month from the Respondent/husband .
2.3. The Respondent/husband filed counter resisting the claim. Also, the Respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No. 4058 of 2018 at Bengaluru under Section 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce against the first Petitioner/wife for desertion and cruelty. The contents of the H.M.O.P.No.4058 of 2018 was reiterated as counter in M.C.No.86 of 2018 stating that after marriage, the husband took the wife on honeymoon to Kerala. After the marriage, they had booked a flat on rent and celebrated house warming ceremony. The Respondent/husband purchased all the household articles including provisions. The marriage expenses was also raised by the husband. When the Respondent/husband wanted to resign his job at Bengaluru and join a job at Chennai, the first Petitioner/wife resisted claiming she cannot adjust to hot weather at Chennai. The Respondent/husband was overburdened with work at Bengaluru, still he continues the job considering the request of his wife to continue the job at Bengaluru. Also the the first Petitioner/wife was suffering from Thyroid and Diabetics and she was given treatment at Bengaluru. The first Petitioner/wife is not cordial towards the family members of the husband. She uses abusive words against th
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
