Madras High Court
Uma vs Sivaraj on 19 August, 2015
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.129 of 2010
1.Uma
2.Minor Ramya ... Petitioners
-vs-
Sivaraj ... Respondent
Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to set aside the order in M.C.No.26 of 2008 dated 22.12.2009 on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur and award maintenance for the
first petitioner and enhance the award of maintenance for the second
petitioner.
!For petitioners : Mr.S.Gokulraj
^For respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan
:ORDER
A maintenance case in M.C.No.26 of 2008 was filed by the wife and daughter of the respondent herein, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. The learned Magistrate enquired into the matter and awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the second petitioner-daughter alone, which was ordered to be payable from the date of petition. So far as the wife is concerned, the petition was dismissed. This order is challenged in this Criminal Revision Case.
2.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that when a suit for maintenance filed by the wife was pending in the Civil Court, the learned Magistrate cannot dismiss the petition for maintenance filed before the Criminal Court and therefore, the order has to be set aside.
3.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on account of the duplication of the claim, one in the Civil Court and one before the Criminal Court, the respondent would be put in double jeopardy and that being impermissible, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the claim for maintenance filed by the wife.
4.In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both sides, it is relevant and appropriate to consider the reason for dismissal, as stated by the Court below. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order, the reason for dismissal has been stated. The learned Magistrate is of the view that just because a suit for maintenance has been filed before the Cuddalore Sub-Court, the claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate is not proper and it is also irregular. Only keeping this in mind, the maintenance petition has been dismissed so far as the wife is concerned.
5.Needless to say that the provision of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are towards achieving the social purpose of achieving social justice. It is the enabling provision towards preventing vagrancy and destitution, providing for summary remedy. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should have awarded maintenance in favour of the wife and the order of maintenance passed in the Criminal Court should be ultimately taken into consideration by the Civil Court. In other words, what is awarded in the Criminal Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has to be deducted towards the amount payable as per the order passed by the Civil Court. The remedy provided in the civil law is a comprehensive remedy and the amount of maintenance as awarded in the summary remedy proceedings, has to be taken into account by the Civil Court. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate dismissing the claim of the wife simply on the ground that duplication of claim filed before two courts are not maintainable, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order dismissing the petition so far as the wife is concerned, has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
6.So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, the salary slip of the respondent has been filed before the Lower Court and as per the salary slip, as on November 2007, the salary has been shown as Rs.7,829.82. The deductions are shown separately and they are towards having obtained loans and interest on the loan amounts. The other deductions are meagre deductions. By now, ie., in 2015, the salary of the respondent would have been doubled. Therefore, the reasonable amount of maintenance has to be fixed having regard to the status of the respondent and his earnings as well. The Cuddalore Sub-Court shall take note of the amount of the quantum of maintenance as ordered by this Court and the respondent is at liberty to rely upon this order before the Cuddalore Sub-Court.
7.Even though it is contended that the petitioners are gainfully employed, there are no documents produced to show that they are employed. Unless evidence is produced to show that they are gainfully employed, it is not possible to accept the contention that they are able to maintain themselves.
8.Considering the nature of the job and the quantum of salary received by the respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as maintenance, which is payable from the date of the order of the Lower Court, ie., 22.12.2009. The time for payment is 3 months from today.
9.The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed as indicated above. To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. .