Madras High Court
M.Suresh Kannan ... Revision vs Kanagapriya on 21 December, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD) No.4121 of 2022
M.Suresh Kannan ... Revision Petitioner /
Respondent
Vs.
1. Kanagapriya
2. Minor Emisha ... Respondents / Petitioners
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the order dated
17.02.2022 made in M.C.No.26 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Family
Court, Tirunelveli, and set aside the same and allow the Criminal Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. Veerakumar.T
For Respondents : Mr. P.Rajesh
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Family Court, Tirunelveli in M.C.No.26 of 2021, dated 17.02.2022.
2. The facts in brief:
The marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent took place on 09.12.2012 as per the family customs. After the marriage, they were living together in the official quarters of the revision petitioner. Due to the marriage, a female child / second respondent herein was born. The sridhana articles and jewels are in the custody of the revision petitioner and his parents. They were demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry and it was continued even after the birth of the child on 19.09.2013. To purchase a house property, the revision petitioner alleged to have pledged the jewels and the revision petitioner is also having illegal contact, when that was objected and enquired by the first respondent, he assaulted the first respondent herein and finally the revision petitioner left the matrimonial home by leaving wife and children in July 2018. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022
3. After July 2018, several steps have been taken on the side of the wife for effective compromise, the revision petitioner was not willing and finally the first respondent herein lodged a complaint before the Police. Even on enquiry, he did not appear, so she has also filed HMOP No.28 of 2020 for restoration of conjugal rights. Now the revision petitoner is getting monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-, apart from that he is also having some source of income and claiming Rs.25,000/- each as maintenance for the wife and children, the above said petition was filed.
4. The revision petitioner has resisted the submission of the first respondent stating that even though they are close relatives, it was also a love marriage, at that time, the wife was working as staff nurse in Rose Mary Mission Hospital. After birth of the child, wife resigned the job. Only the wife insisted him to purchase the property by pledging jewels but after redeeming only she received the above said jewels. A proposal was made by him stating that they can shift the residence to V.K.Puram, so that they can discharge the loan by letting out the house which was constructed but that was not accepted by the wife. After compromise, she was taken to the house in V.K.Puram, but later by picking up quarrel, he left matrimonial home. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the first respondent deserted her husband and the above said house property was purchased by availing loan from the Bank and he has to repay the loan also. Now, whatever it may be as mentioned above, they were living seperately on the date of petition only after that the first respondent went for job to abroad.
6. The Police enquiry was closed on finding the truth. HMOP No.28 of 2021 was filed only by him for restoration of conjugal rights. He took all steps to pay the school fees to the second respondent but that was not accepted by the school administration. He is also ready for reunion and take care of the wife and children.
7. Later, that petition was transferred to Family Court, Tirunelveli and before the Family Court, it was proved that the respondents are entitled for maintenance, so accordingly it was fixed Rs.10,000- for wife and for the minor child, it was fixed Rs.7,000/-, challenging the above said order, this revision has been preferred.
4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022
8. With regard to the issue between the wife and husband, cause of seperation need not be given at this stage. Perusal of the private chat between the husband and wife shows that still husband want to take his wife back. Since, HMOP has been filed by the revision petitoner, he can workout the remedy before the concerned Court where the matter is pending.
9. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the first respondent namely wife is in abroad and working as a Staff Nurse and the second respondent is in custody of her grand parents. Since the first respondent stated to be working as Nurse in abroad, the revision petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned trial Court for modification of the order. Since no particular is produced with regard to the joining of the first respondent as Nurse in abroad, it is stated in the petition that it is to the effect that after birth of the sedond respondent, the first respondent resigned the job. So, till date of the joining as Nurse in abroad, the first respondent is entitled for maintenance amount. That it must be paid by the revision petitioner. For modification, he can approach the concerned Court. So, no relief can be granted to the revision petitioner except the above said liberty. So far as the second respondent concerned, the revision petitioner is not making any challenge with regard to the quantum. Now she is in the custody of her 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022 grand parents, being father, the revision petitioner is bound to maintain the child, awarding of Rs.7,000/- as monthly maintenance to the second respondent cannot be disputed as excessive in nature. So far as the first respondent is concerned, the revision petition is dismissed of with above said liberty.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the revision petitioner. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No indu To The Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022 G.ILANGOVAN,J.
indu Crl.R.C.(MD).No.325 of 2022 21.12.2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis