Crl.R.C(MD)No.611 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 21.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE M

R.JUSTICE

G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.RC(MD)No.611 of 2021

and Crl.MP(MD)No.6713 of 2021

1. Kanimozhi

2. Minor Krish

... Petitioners

Vs

1. Mohan Prabhu

2. S.V.Devarajan

3. Shantha

... Respondents

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) and 401 of

Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order in C.A.No.22 of 2018, dated 27.11.2019,

by partly confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,Thanjavur in

MC.No.37 of 2014, dated 07.03.2018 and call for the records and allow the

grant of relief sought by the petitioners.

For Petitioners

: Mr.S.Jayachandran

For Respondent

: No Appearance

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.611 of 2021

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision

petitioners to set aside the order in C.A.No.22 of 2018, dated 27.11.2019, by

partly confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur in

MC.No.37 of 2014, dated 07.03.2018, by granting monthly maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- to the second revision petitioner and dismissed the same, so far as,

the first revision petitioner is concerned.

2.The facts in brief is as follows:

The marriage between the husband/first respondent and the

wife/first revision petitioner was performed, as per their customary rites and

rituals on 01.02.2009. After the marriage, the second revision petitioner was

born on 19.03.2012 and till that time there was no problem between them.

According to the wife, the problem started after the birth of second revision

petitioner and the husband's family demanded Rs.2 lakhs as dowry, but it was

not complied with by the first revision petitioner and paid only Rs.1,50,000/-.

Later, there was a compromise between them in June to August, 2012 and they

started living together, as joint family and during that time, according to the

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.611 of 2021

wife, she was ill treated and harassed. Therefore, she lodged a complaint on

25.09.2014, before the Madhavaram Police Station. A case in Crime No.346 of

2014 was registered and it is stated to be pending. Because of the above said

torture, she was driven out of the house.

3.On these grounds, she filed a petition under Provisions of

Domestic Violence Act, claiming Rs.10,000/- as maintenance amount each for

herself and for the minor child/second revision petitioner and also for other

reliefs. In the said petition, apart from the above said claim of maintenance

amount, she was also granted with some other reliefs, which we are not

concerned herewith. On the side of wife, 6 documents were marked and she

was examined as PW1. On the side of husband, two documents were marked

and himself examined as RW1. At the conclusion of enquiry as stated above, the

trial Court dismissed the petition. Against which, the above said appeal has

been preferred before the lower appellate Court and the said appeal was also

partly allowed, by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the second

revision petitioner and dismissed the same, so far as, the first revision petitioner

is concerned.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.611 of 2021

4.The prayer of maintenance was resisted by the husband stating

that right from the date of marriage, the wife was not behaving as a dutiful wife,

without proper reason she deserted the matrimonial home and thereafter living

in her parental home. According to him, he is not liable to pay maintenance to

the wife.

5.Now, challenging the above said order, this revision has been

preferred by the wife and child, stating that the wife is also entitled for

compensation and the child is also entitled for enhanced maintenance. The

points for consideration is

1. Whether the claim made by the wife/first revision pe