SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr.P.Saravanarajan vs C.Vijaya on 18 March, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:18.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No.28343 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.No.16091 of 2017
Crl.M.P.No.2586 of 2018

Dr.P.Saravanarajan …Petitioner

Vs.

C.Vijaya …Respondent

PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 08.11.2017, made in Criminal
Revision Petition No.4/2017, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge,
Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, by confirming the order
dated 14.02.2017, made in M.C.No.22/2014, on the file of Judicial
Magistrate, Alandur, by allowing the present Criminal Original
Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murugan

For Respondent : Mr.V.Paarthiban

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner

to set aside the order dated 08.11.2017, made in Criminal Revision

Petition No.4/2017, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge,

Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattur,by confirming the order

dated 14.02.2017, made in M.C.No.22/2014, on the file of Judicial

Magistrate, Alandur, by allowing the present Criminal Original

Petition.

2.The petitioner filed a petition in Criminal Revision Petition

No.4/2017 under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by

the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in maintenance case No.22/2014

dated 14.02.2017. The petitioner / husband filed divorce petition

before the Family Court at Madurai in O.P.No.781/2014, contending

that his wife is having independent means and she often quarrelled

and neglected her husband and made false allegations of

harassment. The respondent contended that the petitioner is

reasonably employed in Makkal TV, Shalini TV and also guest

lecturer at SRM University and getting more than a lakh per month

and prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur awarded a sum

of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition

before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at

Chengalpattu. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after perusal

of the entire records and evidence of both the parties found that the

husband is well qualified post graduate with Ph.D., and he was

employed in Jaya TV and in view of the complaint made by his

colleague for sexual harassment, he was removed from the service.

The respondent wife alleged that he is employed in some other

T.V.Channels. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are not

living together. He is in a position to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as

educational expenses to his son but he is not even paying any

amount to his wife. It was alleged by the husband that his wife is

running a beauty parlour and she is having sufficient means but no

evidence was produced to show that his wife is having a sufficient

means. Simply because the husband moved the Family Court for

divorce the relief of maintenance cannot be refused to the wife.

Considering the educational qualifications and experience, the

learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision

Petition and confirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

Alandur in M.C.No.22/2014 dated 14.02.2017. Hence, the

petitioner is before this Court.

3.Heard the counsel on either side.

4.It is seen that the petitioner filed a petition in

M.C.No.22/2014 as against the respondent. In which, the Trial

Judge ordered a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance. Against

the said order, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition

No.4/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Session Judge,

Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu. The learned Principal

Session Judge, Kancheepuram District has also confirmed the order

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in

M.C.No.22/2014 dated 14.02.2017.

5.It is also seen that the petitioner filed a divorce petition in

H.M.O.P.No.781/2014, in which, he has stated that he is working in

Makkal T.V. And Shalini T.V. and working in SRM university and

earning a sum of Rs.1 lakh per month. Therefore, the award of

maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month passed by the Trial Court is

not huge for the petitioner. Moreover the respondent wife is not

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

having any income. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in this

case.

6.Further, the learned counsel for the respondent referred the

judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.512 of

2010 Criminal Original Petition No.23229 of 2010 in CDJ 2015

MHC 3324. The relevant portion of the order is extracted

hereunder:

“16.So far as the Criminal Original Petition is

concerned, this Court is of the view that once the revisional

provision is invoked by a party before the Sessions Court,

he/she cannot again invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of

the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, a

reference could be placed in the decision reported in AIR

1997 SC 987 (Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni), wherein it has been

held as follows:

“Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section

397(3) of the Code, a person accused / complainant – cannot

be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court

under Section 397(1) or under inherent power of the High

Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to

circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section

http://www.judis.nic.in
6

397(2) of the Code”.

In another decision reported in 2014 (2) MWN(Cr.) 207

(D.Prabhu Srinivasan Vs.Dr.G.Ramaprabha), it has been held

as follows:

“A reading of sub-Section(3) of Section 397 would

make it clear that if an application under this Section has

been made by any person either to the High Court or to the

Sessions Court, no further application by the same person

shall be entertained by the other of them.”

7.Therefore, the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

invoked by the petitioner is only the abuse of process of law and for

the interest of justice called for such exercise at the instance case,

the petitioner filed a maintenance petition in M.C.No.22/2014 under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. as against the respondent and he has also filed a

Criminal Revision Petition No.4/2017 before the Principal Session

Judge, Kancheepuram. Now he has invoked 482 of Cr.P.C.

8.Further, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order

passed by the Courts below. As such, the orders passed by the

Courts below do not warrant interference of this Court. Accordingly,

this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

http://www.judis.nic.in
7

9.At the request of the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted

to pay the arrears of maintenance amount due to the respondent in

four equal monthly installments. The 1st instalment shall commence

from the month of April. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

18.03.2019
kas

Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order

To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge
Kancheepuram District
Chengalpattu

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur

3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
8

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
kas

Crl.O.P.No.28343 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.No.16091 of 2017
Crl.M.P.No.2586 of 2018

18.03.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation