IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL.O.P.NO.23848 OF 2017

AND

CRL.M.P.NO.13815 OF 2017

Renuka

... Petitioner/

Respondent

Vs.

Viswanathan

... Respondent/

Petitioner

Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 in

M.C.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry

and quash the proceeding therein.

For Petitioner

: Mr.N.Selvaraj

for Mr.V.V.Sairam

For Respondent

: Mr.T.P.Manoharan

Senior Counsel

for Mr.K.P.Jotheeswaran

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for

the records in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 in M.C.No.48 of 2006 on

the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry and quash the same.

2.The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Earlier, the

petitioner filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.48 of 2006 before

the Family Court, Pondicherry, which was dismissed by the trial

Court by an order dated 18.07.2007, against which, the

petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1285 of

2007.

3.This Court by an order dated 25.04.2011 set aside the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

order of the trial Court and found that the petitioner is

entitled to maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the

respondent from the date of petition and directed the respondent

to pay the amount, against which, the respondent /Husband

approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the

petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition in

Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 under Section 127(1) Crl.R.C with a

prayer to alter the order of maintenance in M.C.No.48 of 2006

for subsequent charge in circumstances and she is not entitled

for maintenance and sought for modification.

4.The trial Court entertained the petition and kept pending

for quite some time, thereafter, the respondent/husband filed a

Criminal O.P.No.11788 of 2016 before this Court seeking for

earlier disposal of Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 and the petitioner

herein also participated in the same. Thereafter, this Court

passed a conditional order on 04.07.2016 directing the

petitioner/Husband to pay the arrears of maintenance to his wife

Renuka and directed the case could be listed on 06.10.2016 for

reporting compliance. On 06.10.2016, this Court found that the

petitioner already complied with the direction of this Court and

directed the Family Court, Puducherrry, to dispose of

Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 in M.C.No.48 of 2006 within a period of

six months. At this stage, the petitioner/wife has filed this

quash petition.

5.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the Courts below erred in taking cognizance of petition

in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 filed under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C, no

scope of dismissal of M.C.No.48 of 2006. The prayer sought in

Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013 is unknown to law beyond the scope of

Section 127 CR.P.C. Hence, filed this quash petition.

6.He further submitted that earlier the respondent herein

filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the order

passed in Crl.R.C.No.1285 of 2007 and the same was not

entertained. Thereafter, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.131 of

2013, which is beyond the scope of Section 127 Cr.P.C. Further,

submitted that by filing of such petition, the respondent is

attempting to drag on the proceedings and failing to pay the

maintenance amount as ordered by this Court. The only grievance

now is that in the event of the respondent directed to proceed

with Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2013, the petitioner should be permitted

to adduce oral or other evidence. The petitioner admits

receiving demand draft of Rs.15,75,000/- on 03.01.2022.

7.Counsel for the respondent submitted that in obedience to

the order in Crl.O.P.No.11788 of 2016, demand draft for

Rs.15,75,000/- handed over.