Madras High Court
Sudalaiyandi vs Ramalakshmi on 10 February, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.02.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.22583 of 2004
Sudalaiyandi : Petitioner
Vs.
1.Ramalakshmi
2.Minor Sindu @ Isakiammal
3.Minor Shanmugaraj
4.Minor Parameshwari
Minor respondents are represented
by their mother-1st respondent herein
as natural guardian : Respondents
Prayer
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records and set aside the order
dated 10.06.2004 made in Cr.M.P.No.250 of 2004 in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2004 on
the file of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli,
confirming the order dated 10.03.2004 in M.C.No.6 of 2003 on the file of the
learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate at Nanguneri and to quash
the same.
!For Petitioner : No Appearance
^For Respondents : Mr.K.Prabhu
********
:ORDER
****** The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent, namely Ramalakshmi and the father of respondents 2,3 and 4 ? minor children. The first respondent herein filed M.C.No.6 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for her and the children and after contest, the said petition was ordered on 10.03.2004, by directing the petitioner/respondent in the maintenance case to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- each to his wife and three minor children.
2. The respondent in Maintenance Case ? the husband of the first respondent herein filed Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2004 challenging the order granting maintenance and pending disposal of the revision, he filed Cr.M.P.No.250 of 2004, praying for stay of the operation of the order passed in the Maintenance Case. The said stay petition was dismissed on 10.06.2004 and challenging the same, he has filed this Criminal Original Petition.
3. A perusal of the typed-set of documents would disclose that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent herein was solemnised on 27.01.1989 and out of wedlock, three children were born. According to the first respondent, she has been repeatedly subjected to harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of her husband-the petitioner herein and in-laws, on account of demand of dowry and in this regard, she has also given a complaint on the file of Pathamadai Police Station, which resulted in the registration of a case in Crime No.62 of 2003 for the commission of the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and she further alleges therein that during the subsistence of marriage, the petitioner herein has also contracted another marriage with one Alagurani and both of them are living as husband and wife. It is also the specific contention of the first respondent herein that the petitioner herein never care to maintain her or the children and they are left in lurch and, therefore, claimed maintenance.
4. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, found that the petitioner herein is having an annual income of Rs.1,18,608/- as evidenced by Ex.P.1 and he is also having a deposit of Rs.2,79,402/- as per Ex.P.4 and with regard to the contracting of second marriage, a private complaint is also pending adjudication. The Trial Court further recorded the fact that the respondents herein are unable to maintain themselves and, therefore, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each.
5. In the petition for stay pending revision, it is averred that the petitioner herein has resigned his job. Therefore, he is not in receipt of any salary and the first respondent herein is earning very good income out of agricultural operation and, therefore, prayed for stay of the operation of the order.
6. The revisional Court found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner herein has resigned his job on 28.02.2004 and taking into consideration the quantum of maintenance and other facts and circumstances, the revisional Court has expressed the opinion that it is not a case wherein stay of the operation of the impugned order is to be granted and accordingly, dismissed the petition for stay, vide order dated 10.06.2004.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is absent and this Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who would submit that he is not aware of the present position of Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
8. A perusal of the impugned order awarding maintenance would disclose that only a sum of Rs.1,000/- each awarded to the first respondent herein and the three minor children and considering the facts and circumstances, prima facie, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is exorbitant or very much on the higher side. The revisional Court, in the considered opinion of the Court, has exercised its discretion in fair and proper manner and declined to grant stay and this Court finds no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the revisional Court for dismissing the petition for stay. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
10.02.2015 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No SML To
1.The First Additional Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli.
2.The District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate at Nanguneri.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
SML Order made in CRL.O.P.(MD)No.22583 of 2004 Dated:
10.02.2015 (+)