IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 21.10.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.RC.No.768 of 2019

Dr.L.Srinivasn

..Petitioner/Judgement Debtor/

Respondent/Respondent

Vs.

Jensi Rani

..Respondent/Decree Holder/

Petitioner/Petitioner

Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397

and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and revise the

order passed by the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai in

E.P.No.40/2019 in M.P.No.369/2018 in M.C.No.525/2017 dated

10.07.2019.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Mohana Krishnan.G

For Respondent

:

Mr.R.Thanikai Arasu

ORDER

1.The criminal revision has been filed seeking to call for the

records and revise the order passed by the VI Additional Family

Judge, Chennai in E.P.No.40/2019 in M.P.No.369/2018 in

M.C.No.525/2017 dated 10.07.2019.

2. The petitioner is the husband/judgement debtor in

E.P.No.40/2019 and the respondent is the wife/ decree holder.

The respondent/wife had filed the execution petition seeking

for payment of Rs.1,30,000/- due and payable to her towards

arrears of maintenance ordered, to be paid by the

petitioner/husband as maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-

per month in M.P.No.369/2018 dated 23.10.2018 and in default,

to attach the salary of the respondent. The petitioner/husband

has filed his counter denying the necessity and contending that

the wife/respondent has sufficient funds / income to maintain

herself. The trial Court had allowed the Execution Petition and

ordered for attachment of salary of the petitioner/ husband,

against which the present revision has been filed by the

husband.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband would

submit that the husband has filed a suit challenging the

legality of the marriage and that it was dismissed by the trial

1/3

Court, against which the husband has preferred appeal. He

would submit that when the marriage between the parties is

questionable, there is not need for the husband to pay

maintenance to the respondent/ wife. The learned counsel for

the husband would submit that this Court by order dated

06.08.2019, granted interim stay on condition that the

petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.65,000/- within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

order to the credit of M.C.No.525/2017. He would submit that

in due compliance of the order, the petitioner had deposited

the said amount on 09.08.2019, thereafter the order of interim

stay was extended for further a period of two weeks.

4.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that

the revision has been filed, challenging the order passed in

the Execution Petition. He would further submit that the

petitioner/husband has not challenged the order granting

interim maintenance awarded in M.P.No.369/2018 and it has

become final. Since the husband had not paid the interim

maintenance as awarded by the Court, the petitioner has filed

the Execution Petition and the husband had challenged the

execution petition on merits and that the trial Court's finding

that the order passed in M.P.No.369/2018 has not been

challenged and had become final finding that the interim

maintenance had not been paid had after affording opportunity

to him has ordered for attachment of salary. He would submit

that the revision petitioner/husband is a Doctor by profession

and he is evading to make such payment and thereby the Court

had rightly passed the order of attachment.

5. I have gone through the evidence available on record and heard

both sides.

6.The wife had filed a petition in M.C.No.525/2017 claiming of

Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance. During the pendency of

M.C.No.525/2017, the wife

had filed a petition in

M.P.No.369/2018, seeking for a direction to pay interim

maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to her. The trial Court,

b