High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025K.Prabakaran.....PetitionerVsM.Mala .....RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the case in Crl.M.P.No.1186 of 2024 in M.C.No.402 of 2010 on the file of the Learned III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai 600 104 and set aside the impugned orders dated 03.04.2025 passed therein by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.For Petitioner : Mr.G.SaravananFor Respondents : Mr.R.ThanjanORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1186 of 2024 by the III Additional Principal Judge thereby dismissed the petition filed under Section 146 of Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025BNSS, 2023 to cancel the exparte order dated 20.06.2016.2. The respondent filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.402 of 2010 as against the petitioner as if she got married to the petitioner on 20.07.2002 and obtained an exparte order of maintenance on 20.06.2016. Though the petitioner had challenged the said order in M.P.No.407 of 2016 and the same was confirmed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1186 of 2024 to set aside the ex-parte order in M.P.No.407 of 2016 and the same was allowed on 30.08.2017 by the trial court on condition that the petitioner shall pay half of the arrears of maintenance amount on or before 30.09.2017 failing which, the order stands cancelled. The petitioner could not comply the said condition. Thereafter, he challenged the said conditional order with delay of 1426 days before this Court. It was dismissed and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Later, the petitioner found that in the statement of accounts produced by the respondents it is specifically mentioned that she is wife of one Arumugam. The petitioner also stoutly denied the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to cancel the order passed in M.C.No.402 of 2010. In fact the petitioner is also a Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025married person and his marital status is very much in existence. However, it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.4. A perusal of the records reveals that Ex.P5 & Ex.P6 filed by the respondent in the maintenance case are related to LIC and Canara Bank. In the said LIC document, petitioner's name is mentioned as husband of the respondent. But the bank passbook shows that the respondent is the wife of one Arumugam. In order to prove the marital relationship between the respondent and the petitioner, the respondent did not file any documents such as marriage registration certificate or birth certificate of any children except family photographs, LIC Policy and bank passbook. However, without considering the same, the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it is a second round of litigation and the petitioner already filed a petition to set aside the exparte award. Though it was allowed on payment of 50% of arrears of maintenance, the petitioner did not comply the same and challenged the said conditional order with Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025condone delay. It was dismissed and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.5. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 146 of BNSS (section 127 of Cr.P.C)“ 146. Alteration in allowance (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 144 a monthly allowance for the maintenance or intrim maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, or interim mainenance, to is wife, child, father or mother, as the case ay be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the mainenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.(2) Where it appers to the Magistrate that in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under Section 144 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order, or, as the case may, vary the same accordingly.(3) Where any order has been made under Section 144 in favour of a woman who has been divorce by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that-- (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date or her remarriage; (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicabel to the parites, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order,(i) in the case where wuch sum was paid before such order, from the date on which such order was made;(ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025any for which mainenance has been actually paid by the usband to the woman;(c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may, after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof.(4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance or dowry by any perso, to whom a monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them has been ordered to be paid under Section 144, the Civil court shall take into account the sum which has been paid to, or recovered by, such person as monthly allowance for the maintenance and interim maintenance or any of them, as the case may be, in pursuance of the said order.6. In the above said provision, there is no definition for a change of circumstance. Therefore, the trial court ought to have ajudge the change in the circumstance based on the material putforth by the parties and having regard to the circumstances of the said case. 7. In view of the above narrated circumstances, the trial court ought to have recalled the earlier order to give opportunity to both the parties to prove their marital relationship. Therefore, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to both the petitioner as well as the respondent herein to prove their marital status or their living together relationship before the trial court. Hence the order passed by the trial court in Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025M.P.No.1186 of 2024 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in M.P.No.1186 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and the respondent and after giving opportunity of hearing to both to let in evidence and dispose of the same in accordance with law.9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16.07.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderNhsTo The III Additional Principal Family Court, ChennaiPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.NhsCrl.R.C.No.718 of 2025& Crl.M.P.No.10696 of 202516.07.2025Page 8 of 8