w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Anandha Kumar v/s Sathya


Company & Directors' Information:- A. KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1995PTC018833

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014540

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45203DL1964PTC117149

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041038

Company & Directors' Information:- P KUMAR & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105WB1998PTC087242

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR L P G PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U23201DL2001PTC113203

Company & Directors' Information:- M KUMAR AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1982PTC014823

Company & Directors' Information:- B N KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52341WB1941PTC010643

    Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 455 of 2020 & Crl. M.P.(MD) No. 3963 of 2020

    Decided On, 29 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

    For the Petitioner: J. Anandhavalli, Advocate. For the Respondent: Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Family Court, Sivagangai in M.C.No.52 of 2019.)1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.52 of 2019 dated 10.07.2020, on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai.2. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The wife has filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.52 of 2019 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Sivagangai. The Family Court, Sivagangai has passed an order on 10.07.2020, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month to the respondent. Against the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of revision.3. The brief substance of the petition in M.C.No.52 of 2019 is as follows :-The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 29.04.2016. They lived together for 22 days. On 22.05.2016, the husband went abroad. Subsequently, the in-laws of the petitioner chased her away from home. The husband returned back on 24.03.2017. Three days afterwards, the husband and his family members went for a tour leaving the wife alone. Again on 19.04.2017, the husband went abroad. Again the in-laws drived her away from the house. Subsequently, the husband returned back from abroad and the in-laws arranged for his second marriage. Hearing the same, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 10.08.2017 before the Sivagangai All Women Police Station. The husband filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.282 of 2017. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Since the husband refused to live with the wife, the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.220 of 2018. The husband filed a petition in C.M.P.(MD)No.1075 of 2018 before this Court. The petitioner is not having any permanent income. While he was abroad, the husband was earning Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only). Now the husband is working in a private company and is earning Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month. His father is a retired Tahsildar and his mother is working as ADM Supervisor in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The brother of the husband is working as a Manager in IDBI Bank. They have five houses at Kancharankol. They are having two cars. Other than these, they had landed properties and house and they are getting more than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) per year. The petitioner has spent Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to contest the case in C.M.P. (MD)No.1075 of 2018. The respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner.4. Counter filed by the respondent in M.C.No.52 of 2019 is as follows: The petitioner's father and the respondent's mother were brother and sister. The marriage is admitted. The petitioner is a M.Sc., M.Phil., B.ed., decree holder. She wanted to dominate the husband. She demanded the property of the parents of the respondent to be transferred to her name. She deserted the husband. The husband filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.282 of 2017. Only after the dismissal of the divorce petition, the wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.220 of 2018. That petition was stayed by this Court. The petitioner has filed various cases against the respondent and his family members. She has lodged a complaint in Crime No.722 of 2017 before the Sivagangai Town Police Station. The respondent has to meet out various cases filed by the wife. Hence, the parents of the respondent sent him away from the home on 05.04.2019. The respondent is working in a xerox shop for a salary of Rs.150/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty only) per day and he is residing in a room of a friend. The father of the petitioner retired as Checking Supervisor in Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation. The brother of the petitioner was working in other countries for the past four years and he is earning Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month. The petitioner's father is having 10 acres of land. They are having sufficient income and prayed the petition to be dismissed.5. After examination of the witness and after perusal of the document, the trial Court passed an order directing the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month towards maintenance for the petitioner.6. Against that order, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case under the following grounds:The wife failed to prove the income of the husband. The income of the parents of the husband and the brother of the husband cannot be taken into consideration for fixing maintenance. The wife is capable of maintaining herself. The wife lived with the husband only for 20 days. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the parents and the brother of the wife are well off. The wife is educated and well qualified. There is no necessity for the wife to pray for maintenance. The wife harassed the petitioner and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.7. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that it is duty of the husband to maintain the wife and whatever amount given by her parents, can be treated only as a gift and not as an income. It is stated that the husband cannot claim the income of the father and brother of the wife as her income.8. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the wife is in habit of filing so many complaints against the petitioner and his family members. Only due to her activity, the husband was forced to file a petition for divorce.9. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the in-laws of the respondent tortured her and chased her out of the matrimonial home. Only by lodging a complaint, the wife was able to get back her certificates.10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that in the evidence of the wife, it was admitted that there was no problem between the husband and the wife and that reveals that the wife wantedly deserted the husband.11. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that only due to the torture of the in-laws, the wife has to leave the matrimonial house and it was the husband and the in-laws who deserted the wife. The torture of the in-laws was not disputed by the husband. Even when the husband was abroad, he never send any amount to the wife. Even after returning from abroad, he spent only three days with the wife and then he went for a tour with his family members, leaving the wife alone.12. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that a wife is entitled for a decent maintenance, she cannot kept as a begger. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan in (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705, whereas it is stated as follows:“As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar.13. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of R.Srinivasan v. V.Hemapriya in Crl.R.C.No.938 of 2017, whereas it is stated as follows:“It has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar.This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earningAt this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny.”14. It is seen that the marriage is admitted. The income of the father and brother of the wife cannot be taken as the respondent's income. Admittedly the wife is not going for any job. It is stated that though she is qualified, she was not able to get the job at the present situation. Whether there is property available in the family of the husband and whether the husband is having any right over the property cannot be decided in this petition. The husband did not mark any documents t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o disprove the contention of the wife. It is seen that the father of the husband accompanied him at the time of trial. The contention of the husband that he was sent away from home by his parent is a false statement. It is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife. Husband cannot claim that he is having insufficient income to maintain his wife. The respondent is an Engineer. There is no record to prove that the respondent is earning only Rs.150/- (Rupees One Hundred and Fifty only) per day.15. In the above circumstances, considering both sides, this Court is inclined to modify the maintenance amount. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) per month to the wife, as maintenance.16. With the above direction, the order in M.C.No.52 of 2019 passed by the Family Court is modified and hence, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R