Advocates:
['M/s S M A Jinnah', '', 'K C Ponrajendran', '', 'ADDITIONAL TYPESET FILED', 'M/s A K Manickam', '', 'B Vinotha', 'Cell No']

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.333 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 17.03.2021

Delivered on : 25.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.333 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2830 of 2020

Khader Oli

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Agadha Praveen

2.Minor.Mohamed Fayed Oli

3.Minor.Mohamed Zayed Oli

(Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were rep by their

Natural guardian Mother 1^st Respondent)

.. Respondents

Prayer : This Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. Section

401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order

in Cr.M.P.No.586 of 2018 in M.C.No.61 of 2017, dated 08.11.2019

passed by the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam

ORDER

This revision has been filed to call for the records and to

set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.586 of 2018 in M.C.No.61 of 2017,

dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

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

the wife and the respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children. The

first respondent / wife filed a petition in M.C.No.61 of 2017

against the petitioner / husband before the Family Court,

Tiruchirappalli in M.C.No.61 of 2017 for a relief of maintenance,

along with the petition, she filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.586 of

2018 for interim maintenance. The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli,

allowed the petition and directing the revision petitioner/

husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.4,000/- for the first

respondent and Each Rs.3,500/- for the respondents 2 and 3) and to

pay a sum of Rs.34,800/- to the second petitioner and Rs.32,300/-

to the third respondent respectively towards the Educational

expenses for the year 2018-2019. Against that order, the

petitioner / husband filed this Revision.

1/3

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

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.333 of 2020

3.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that

the revision petitioner / husband and the first respondent/ wife

lived together from 2007 till 2015. Subsequently, the wife

deserted the husband and filed a complaint under the Dowry

Prohibition Act against the husband and his family members and

she filed a D.V.O.P. Case in D.V.C.No.128 of 2016 and in the

D.V.C, the Court has ordered the revision petitioner / husband to

pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and the revision petitioner /

husband is paying the amount. The revision petitioner / husband

is an ulcer patient and he taking treatment in Vellore Hospital.

Only because, the revision petitioner/ husband is a patient, the

first respondent / wife deserted him. The first respondent / wife

is working in a College, she is a Phd., decree holder, earning a

sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. The first respondent / wife

married another person and she is having a child through him and

prayed the impugned order to be set aside. Copy of a page from

internet wishing the respondent happy married life on

11^th December is filed, on the side of the revision petitioner.

4.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that it is

wrong to state that the first respondent / wife got second

marriage. The judgment was pronounced on 08.11.2019 and the

marriage date as alleged by the petitioner is 11.12.2019. The

date itself indicates that the allegation is wrong. There was a

proposal for the second marriage, but, no marriage taken place.

No evidence was produced by the revision petitioner / husband to

prove the second marriage. The revision petitioner / husband was

working abroad and he returned back to India recently. He is

having sufficient means and he worked aboard for eight years and

earned more than Two Crores. He is having three houses and a

Complex and is receiving Rs.60,000/- as rent. The income of the

revision petitioner / husband was not denied in the counter and

prayed the