IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

CRL.R.C.NO.506 OF 2016 AND

CRL.M.P.NO.3449 OF 2016

Ramamurthy

...Petitioner/Respondent

-Vs-

1. Dhanalakshmi

2. Minor R.Divya

3. Minor R.Deepalakshmi

Rep. By their mother and natural

guardian

...Respondents/Petitioners

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397

read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. call for the records made in

CMP. No.2127 of 2015 in MC.No.16 of 2011 dated 21.12.2015 on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi and set aside

the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

O R D E R

This criminal revision has been filed against the order

passed in CMP. No.2127 of 2015 in MC.No.16 of 2011 dated

21.12.2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Katpadi.

2. The petitioner is the husband, first respondent is the

wife and the respondents 2 & 3 are the daughters. The

respondents herein had filed a petition seeking maintenance

against the petitioner/husband before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Katpadi in MC. No.16 of 2011 under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. The learned Judge, after adverting to the materials

placed on record and after hearing both the parties, had awarded

a sum of Rs.11,000/- per month to the respondents vide order

dated 21.12.2015 from the date of the petition. But, the

petitioner has failed to pay the maintenance amount from

01.04.2013. As on 02.05.2015, the petitioner has to pay the

arrears of maintenance i.e. Rs.2,75,000/-. Therefore, the

respondents filed a miscellaneous petition in CMP.No.2127 of

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

2015 for collection of arrears of maintenance for the period

from 03.04.2013 to 02.05.2015 and the same was allowed by

attaching the salary of the petitioner to the tune of

Rs.12,000/- every month, till the total arrears of Rs.2,75,000/-

is cleared. Challenging the order dated 21.12.2015, the

petitioner/husband has preferred the present criminal revision

case before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

during the pendency of the maintenance case, the parties have

arrived at the settlement before the Lok Adalat. As per the

settlement, a settlement deed was executed in favour of their

daughters. Further the learned counsel submitted that the

divorce petition is also still pending. When the divorce case

is pending before the trial Court and also the parties arrived

at a settlement between them, the attachment of the salary of

the petitioner is not acceptable one. Hence, the learned counsel

prays to allow the petition.

4. When the matter is called, there is no representation for

the respondents, as the notice has been served on them. Heard

the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials

available on record.

5. The facts of the case is not in dispute and the

relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also

not in dispute that the trial Court directed the petitioner

herein to pay the maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month to the

respondents herein. The petitioner has not paid the maintenance

regularly, for which there was arrears for the period from

02.04.2012 to 01.04.2013 and 03.04.2013 to 02.05.2015.

Therefore, the respondents has filed a petition for collection

of arrears. The petitioner has also admitted before the trial

Court that total due is pending for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as

arrears. In order to realize the said amount, the trial Court

attached a sum of Rs.12,000/- every month from the petitioner's

salary by invoking Section 421(1)(a) of Cr.P.C, till the total

arrears of Rs.2,75,000/- is cleared. The only ground raised by

the petitioner is that there was a settlement deed executed in

favour of his daughters viz., respondents 2 & 3. Merely, an

execution of settlement