Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015This Court, on 03.09.2025, had passed the following order: “The petitioner, estranged husband of the respondent had faced prosecution in M.C.No.6 of 2012 and suffered an order of maintenance dated 24.12.2014, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed the above revision in Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015 along with stay petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015, wherein, this Court, by the order dated 23.03.2015 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance. 2.The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner married the respondent in the year 1992 and after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were living in a joint family with the respondent's parents. On 15.05.1993, they were blessed with a son named Dinesh Babu and now the son has completed his B.E. Degree. The petitioner projected himself that he is owning a shop, having sufficient income. Believing the same, the marriage was accepted, later it came to know that the petitioner was not having any shop and not employed anywhere. In the year 1995, the petitioner joined Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on contract basis and in the year 2004, he was observed permanent as an Assessor. In the year 2005, a girl baby was born and later died. Thereafter, there was no cordial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner was suspecting the respondent and they had a very stormy relationship. In the year 2010, the respondent had undergone uterus removal surgery. The petitioner paid for the surgery and later demanded medical expense of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid by the respondent's parents. The petitioner admits that he had built a house on the Page No.2 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015vacant plot of the respondent's parents and the jewels of the respondent has been used by the petitioner. Later, the respondent was forced out of the house, forcing the respondent's parents to settle the property in favour of the petitioner. The respondent was forced to stay with her parents and the petitioner and his son alone were staying in the house. The petitioner failed to pay any amount for maintenance. Hence, a maintenance petition seeking Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance was filed. Before the Lower Court the respondent examined herself as PW1 and marked 6 documents. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 and his son as RW2 and marked 5 documents. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the admitted case of the respondent is that divorce has been obtained in H.M.O.P.No.163 of 2015 on 29.01.2025 by the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. He further submitted that the petitioner is presently without any employment and not attending the office. The petitioner transferred from Chennai to Cuddalore, he has undergone spinal cord surgery and unable to travel and is on loss of pay and he has no source to pay the maintenance amount. Further he had purchased two properties and settled the same in the name of his son. 4.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even the modified maintenance amount is not being paid. The petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.2,96,000/- from the year 2012 to 2014 and to the tune of Rs.6,20,000/- from the year 2015 to 2024. In total, the petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.9,16,000/-. The petitioner has got vast properties and income and not paid monthly maintenance to the respondent, the petitioner is not attending the work, it is his own making, on the other hand, his son is employed, married and he is also supporting the petitioner. The Page No.3 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015petitioner with his wealth is living a happy life but neglecting the respondent. 5.This Court is not convinced with the explanation given by the learned counsel for petitioner. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitioner seeks time. 6.Post the case on 10.09.2025 under the caption 'For Orders'.” 2.In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this Court on 03.09.2025, today the learned counsel for the petitioner had produced memo of calculation, which reads as follows: S.No.YearAmount paid for the monthsAmount defaulted for the monthsTotal amount paid in the entire yearTotal amount defaulted for the entire year1.4.4.201209045,0002.2013012060,0003.2014012060,0004.20157535,00025,0005.201621010,00050,0006.201712060,00007.20188440,00020,0008.20193915,00045,0009.20205725,00035,00010.20217535,00025,00011.20221115,00055,00012.202321010,00050,00013.20244820,00040,00014.202509045,000TOTAL51111Rs.2,55,000/-Rs.5,55,000/-Total amount paid = Rs.2,55,000/-.Page No.4 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Total amount to be paid = Rs.5,55,000/-.Note:1.Interim stay deposit = Rs.15,000/-.2.Restoration Cost = Rs.7,500/-.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.5,55,000/- and seeks three weeks time to deposit the said amount. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent is also present. 5.In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,55,000/- in M.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District, on or before 24.10.2025. 6.Post the matter on 27.10.2025 under the caption “for reporting compliance”. Page No.5 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 20152.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 24.09.2025, the petitioner filed a report of compliance along with the receipt confirming the payment of Rs.5,55,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee. The scanned reproduction of the memo of compliance and the receipt is as follows:Page No.6 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Page No.7 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Page No.8 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Page No.9 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 20153.On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent/wife filed a maintenance petition, examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.P1 is the marriage invitation, Ex.P2 is the Bank passbook of the respondent/wife, Ex.P3 is the Family card, Ex.P4 is the property document in Vengikal village purchased by the petitioner on 25.06.2008, Ex.P5 is the property document in Ravalpindi village purchased by the petitioner and Ex.P6 is the marriage photograph of the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner/husband examined himself as D.W.1, their son as D.W.2 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. Ex.D1 is the monthly EMI payment book, Ex.D2 is the monthly payment of chit, Ex.D3 is the HDFC bank receipt showing that the petitioner/husband borrowed loan, Ex.D4 is the salary certificate of the petitioner/husband and Ex.D5 is the settlement made to his son.4.Though the respondent/wife claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, considering the evidence and materials the Trial Court ordered the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month from the Page No.10 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015date of petition i.e., 23.04.2012. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition filed. 5.This Court at the time of admission on 23.03.2015 directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month and so far, the petitioner paid a sum Rs.5,55,000/- as stated above, which is not in dispute.6.Now the respondent/wife appeared and filed her memo. A scanned reproduction of the memo is as follows:Page No.11 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Page No.12 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Page No.13 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015Page No.14 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 20157.The respondent/wife agreed to receive Rs.6,000/- per month without any default on or before 5th of every month and her only plea is that she may be permitted to withdraw the amount lying in the credit of M.C.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District.8.The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has got no objection for the respondent withdrawing the amount deposited before the Trial Court.9.In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District in M.C.No.6 of 2012 dated 24.12.2014 is set aside. The petitioner/husband henceforth to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife as agreed by her from the date of this order. The respondent/wife is permitted to withdraw the amount lying in the credit of M.C.No.6 of 2012 by filing an appropriate petition before the Trial Court. Notice to the petitioner/husband is dispensed with.Page No.15 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 201510.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.10.11.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking Order,Neutral Citation: Yes/No cseToThe Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.Page No.16 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.241 of 2015M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.cseCrl.R.C.No.241 of 2015 10.11.2025 Page No.17 of 17