Madras High Court
Syed Aleemullah vs N.Shamshad Begum on 12 February, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.SR2301 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.1220 of 2019
Syed Aleemullah ... Petitioner
vs.
1. N.Shamshad Begum
2. A.Farha Fathima (minor)
(represented by 1st petitioner) .... Respondent
Prayer in C.M.P.No.1220 of 2019: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking to condone
the delay of 95 days in filing the criminal revision.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.SR2301 of 2019: Criminal revision case has
been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 (5) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the
order dated 19.03.2018 in M.C.No.505 of 2014 passed by the Vth
Additional Family Court, Chennai.
Petitioner : Mr.P.Tamilavel
Respondents: Mr.Gouhar-Un-Nissa
ORDER
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 95 days in filing the above criminal revision.
2 The petitioner is husband and 1st respondent is wife and 2nd respondent is minor child. The first respondent/wife has filed a petition http://www.judis.nic.in 2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance in M.C.No.505 of 2014. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 19.03.2018, had awarded Rs.15,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent as maintenance. Aggrieved against the same, the husband has filed the present revision case.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that the order of maintenance awarded by the Court below is an ex-parte order and the petitioner/husband was not given any opportunity. Hence the order dated 19.03.2018 is liable to be set aside.
4 It is seen that the learned Magistrate has passed an order of maintenance, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner/husband and taking into consideration the counter statement filed by the petitioner/husband in the maintenance case. Even though, the petitioner/husband had entered appearance through counsel and filed his counter statement, he has not appeared before the trial Court. The cases of this nature is only a summary proceedings and the Court need not conduct elaborate trial. The Court need not wait for more than four years to decide the case under Section 125 of http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Cr.P.C. Further the petitioner/husband, in his counter statement, has not stated that the first respondent/wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. Therefore the trial Court, has rightly taken into consideration the counter statement filed by the petitioner/husband and awarded maintenance, in which this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity.
5 Hence, allowing this petition and numbering the main revision case would not serve any purpose, since this Court is not inclined to allow the criminal revision case. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed and consequently, the criminal revision case is rejected at SR stage itself.
12.02.2019 Index: Yes/No cgi To The Vth Additional Principal Judge, V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
cgi Crl.R.C.No.SR2301 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.1220 of 2019 12.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in