Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P VELMURUGAN
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observations and direction, this revision petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. It is seen that the revision petitioner/husband has stated that he has no means and the respondent/wife submitted that the husband is having means. However, he has not produced the affidavit of assets and liability. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below…
Judgment
Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 25.03.2025Coram:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANCrl.R.C.No.1252 of 2023--Mr.A.Tamilvanan, S/o Mr.Arumugam .. PetitionerVs.Mrs.K.Gejalakshmi, D/o Mr.Kathan .. RespondentCriminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.05.2023 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurantakam. For petitioner : Mr.G.Mahesh KumarFor respondent : Mr.V.RajasekarORDERThe revision petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order, dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurantakam in M.C.No.1 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submitted that the petitioner is a handicapped person. The respondent/wife left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. Page No. 1 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 2023 The respondent has not proved the income of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the materials and passed the impugned order of maintenance. The petitoner is getting only disability pension and except that, there is no other income.
Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the revision petitioner, before marriage, admitted that he was working and earning only Rs.30,000/- and subsequently, he left the job, but now he is having a building and he has let out the same for commercial purpose and getting income. He has failed to produce the Bank Account.
Operative part
It is seen that the revision petitioner/husband has stated that he has no means and the respondent/wife submitted that the husband is having means. However, he has not produced the affidavit of assets and liability. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurantakam for fresh consideration. The parties are at liberty to take additional evidence and also produce the relevant documents, if any. The Court below is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to both parties and the revision petitioner/husband is direted to file fresh assets and liability statement and also produce the Bank Account statement and decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the case expeditiously. Page No. 2 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 20235. With the above observations and direction, this revision petition is disposed of. 25.03.2025csTo1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurantakam.2. The Section Officer, Criminal Section - Records Wing, High Court, Madras. Page No. 3 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 2023P.VELMURUGAN, JcsCrl.R.C.No.1252 of 202325.03.2025 Page No. 4 / 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations and direction, this revision petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.