SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohanambal vs Annadurai on 7 June, 2019

1

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATMADRAS

DATED:07.06.2019

CORAM

THEHONOURABLEMr.JUSTICEN.ANANDVENKATESH

Crl.O.P.No.1125of2016

inCrl.M.P.No.496of2016

Mohanambal..Petitioner

Vs.

Annadurai..Respondent

Prayer:CriminalOriginalPetitionisfiledunderSection482ofCriminal

ProcedureCode,tosetasidetheorderdated12.08.2015madein

CriminalRevisionPetitionNo.29of2015,onthefileofthelearned

DistrictandSessionsJudge,CuddaloreatVirudhachalambyconfirming

theorderpassedinC.M.P.No.3356of2011,dated01.08.2014onthe

JudicialMagistrateNo.I,Virudhachalam.

ForPetitioner:Mr.N.Manokaran

ForRespondents:M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi
andL.Palanimuthu

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

ORDER

Thispetitionhasbeenfiledbythewifechallengingtheorder

passedincriminalRevisionPetitionwhereintheenhancementof

compensationsoughtforbythepetitionerwasrejectedbytherevision

Courtbyanorderdated12.08.2015.

2.Thepetitionerfiledapetitionseekingformaintenanceunder

Section125ofCr.P.CinM.C.No.20of2004.Byanorderdated

17.07.2006,themonthlymaintenancewasfixedatthesumof

Rs.1,500/-andtherespondentwasalsodirectedtopayasumof

Rs.2,000/-peryearforclothandmedicalexpenditure.Aftersometime

intheyear2011,thepetitionerfiledapetitionunderSection127of

Cr.P.C,seekingforenhancementofmaintenanceamountfrom

Rs.1,500/-toRs.15,000/-andalsoclaimedasumofRs.25,000/-

towardsclothandmedicalexpenditure.Themaintenanceamountwas

claimedonthebasisthattherespondentwasworkinginNLCasa

TechnicalGrade-IIIemployeeandisgettingsalaryofnearly

Rs.41,398/-permonthandinspiteofthesamehehasnotpaidany

maintenancemorethanRs.1,500/-andthesaidmaintenanceamountis

grosslyinadequateforthepetitionertomaintainherself.

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

3.TheJudicialMagistrateNo.I,Virudhachalam,byanorderdated

01.08.2014,afterconsideringtheentirematerialsavailableonrecord

andalsothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thoughtitfittofixthe

maintenanceamountatRs.5,000/-permonthandalsofixed

Rs.10,000/-peryeartowardsclothandmedicalexpenditure.

4.Thisorderwaschallengedbothbythepetitionerandthe

respondentandboththerevisionpetitionscametobedismissedand

therebytheorderoftheJudicialMagistrateNo.I,Virudhachalam,was

confirmed.Aggrievedbythesame,thewifehasnowpreferredthis

petitionunderSection482ofCr.P.Conthegroundthattherevisional

Courthasnotgivenanyreasonsforthedismissalofthepetitionseeking

forenhancementandtherebyhasoccasionedinthefailureofjustice.

5.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthe

JudicialMagistrateaftercomingtothecategoricalfindingthatthe

respondentisearningamonthlysalaryofRs.41,398/-asevidencedby

Ex.R8,oughttohaveorderedamonthlymaintenanceofRs.15,000/-to

thepetitioner.Thelearnedcounselfurthersubmittedthattherevisional

Courtwhiledismissingthepetitiondidnotgiveanyreasonandhas

merelyconfirmedtheorderoftheJudicialMagistrate.Thelearned

counselfurthersubmittedthatthepetitionerhasbeendriventofilea

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

petitionunderSection128ofCr.P.C,againsttherespondentseekingfor

thepaymentofarrearsofmaintenanceandeventhemonthly

maintenancethatwasfixedbythetrialCourtisnotbeingproperlypaid

bytherespondent.Thelearnedcounselfurthersubmittedthatthis

Courthassufficientjurisdictiontointerferewiththeorderpassedbythe

revisionalCourtandinordertosubstantiatethesame,thelearned

counselforthepetitionerrelieduponthejudgmentoftheHon’ble

SupremeCourtinBhuwanMohanSinghVs.Meenaandothersreported

in(2015)6SCCpage353.

6.Percontra,thelearnedcounselfortherespondentsubmitted

thattherespondenthasagreedtothemaintenanceamountfixedbythe

trialCourtandispayingthemonthlymaintenanceofRs.5,000/-without

fail.ThelearnedcounselfurthersubmittedthatthetrialCourthasfixed

theamountofmaintenanceaftertakingintoconsiderationtheentire

materialsavailableonrecordandthesamehasalsobeenconfirmedby

therevisionCourtandthisCourtcannotinterferewiththesamein

exerciseofitsjurisdictionunderSection482ofCr.P.Candvirtuallythe

presentpetitionisinthenatureofsecondrevisionwhichisbarred

underSection397(3)ofCr.P.C.Inordertosubstantiatehis

submissions,thelearnedcounselrelieduponthejudgementinRajathi

Vs.C.Ganesanreportedin(1999)6SCCpage326.

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

7.ThisCourthascarefullyconsideredthesubmissionsmadeon

eithersideandalsothematerialsavailableonrecord.

8.Thereisnodisputewithregardtotherelationshipbetweenthe

partiesandalsoofthefactthatthepetitionerisworkinginNLCasa

TechnicalGrade-IIIemployee.Thereisalsonodisputewithregardto

themonthlysalaryofthepetitionerandthesameisborneoutby

Ex.R8.Theonlyissuethatrequirestobeconsiderediswhetherthe

petitionerisentitledforanenhancedcompensationthantheonethat

wasfixedbythetrialCourt.

9.AreadingoftheorderoftherevisionCourtmanifestlyreveals

thefactthattherevisionalCourthasnotgivenanyreasonsastowhyit

isdenyingtheenhancementofmaintenanceinfavourofthepetitioner.

TherevisionalCourthasmerelystatedthataftervariousdeductions,

therespondentisreceivingalesseramountandthereforethe

maintenanceamountofRs.5,000/-isreasonable.

10.Atthispointoftime,itwillberelevanttorefertothe

judgmentinBhuwanMohanSinghVs.Meenaandothersreportedin

(2015)6SCCpage353referredsupra.Therelevantportionofthe

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

judgmentisextractedhereunder:

7.Attheoutset,weareobligedtoreiteratethe
principleoflawhowaproceedingunderSection125ofthe
Codehastobedealtwithbythecourt,andwhatisthe
dutyofaFamilyCourtafterestablishmentofsuchcourtsby
theSectionFamilyCourtsAct,1984.SectionInDukhtarJahanv.Mohd.
FarooqtheCourtopinedthat:(SCCp.631,para16)

“16….ProceedingsunderSection125[ofthe
Code],itmustberemembered,areofasummary
natureandareintendedtoenabledestitutewives
andchildren,thelatterwhethertheyarelegitimate
orillegitimate,togetmaintenanceinaspeedy
manner.”

8.Athree-JudgeBenchinVimala(K.)v.Veeraswamy
(K.),whilediscussingaboutthebasicpurposeunder
Section125oftheCode,opinedthat:(SCCp.378,para3)

“3.Section125oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedureismeanttoachieveasocialpurpose.The
objectistopreventvagrancyanddestitution.It
providesaspeedyremedyforthesupplyoffood,
clothingandsheltertothedesertedwife.”

9.Atwo-JudgeBenchinKirtikantD.Vadodariav.

StateofGujarat,whileadvertingtothedominantpurpose
behindSection125oftheCode,ruledthat:(SCCp.489,

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

para15)

“15….Whiledealingwiththeambitandscope
oftheprovisioncontainedinSection125ofthe
Code,ithastobeborneinmindthatthedominant
andprimaryobjectistogivesocialjusticetothe
woman,childandinfirmparents,etc.andtoprevent
destitutionandvagrancybycompellingthosewho
cansupportthosewhoareunabletosupport
themselvesbuthaveamoralclaimforsupport.The
provisionsinSection125provideaspeedyremedy
tothosewomen,childrenanddestituteparentswho
areindistress.TheprovisionsinSection125are
intendedtoachievethisspecialpurpose.The
dominantpurposebehindthebenevolentprovisions
containedinSection125clearlyisthatthewife,child
andparentsshouldnotbeleftinahelplessstateof
distress,destitutionandstarvation.”

10.SectionInChaturbhujv.SitaBai,reiteratingthelegal
positiontheCourtheld:(SCCp.320,para6)

“6….Section125CrPCisameasureofsocial
justiceandisspeciallyenactedtoprotectwomen
andchildrenandasnotedbythisCourtinCapt.
SectionRameshChanderKaushalv.VeenaKaushalfalls
withinconstitutionalsweepofSectionArticle15(3)
reinforcedbySectionArticle39oftheConstitutionofIndia.
Itismeanttoachieveasocialpurpose.Theobjectis
topreventvagrancyanddestitution.Itprovidesa
speedyremedyforthesupplyoffood,clothingand

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

sheltertothedesertedwife.Itgiveseffectto
fundamentalrightsandnaturaldutiesofamanto
maintainhiswife,childrenandparentswhenthey
areunabletomaintainthemselves.Theaforesaid
positionwashighlightedinSectionSavitabenSomabhai
Bhatiyav.StateofGujarat.”

11.RecentlyinSectionNagendrappaNatikarv.Neelamma,it
hasbeenstatedthatitisapieceofsociallegislationwhich
providesforasummaryandspeedyreliefbywayof
maintenancetoawifewhoisunabletomaintainherself
andherchildren.

12.TheFamilyCourtshavebeenestablishedfor
adoptingandfacilitatingtheconciliationprocedureandto
dealwithfamilydisputesinaspeedyandexpeditious
manner.Athree-JudgeBenchinSectionK.A.AbdulJaleelv.
T.A.Shahida,whilehighlightingonthepurposeofbringing
intheSectionFamilyCourtsActbythelegislature,opinedthus:
(SCCp.170,para10)

“10.SectionTheFamilyCourtsActwasenactedto
providefortheestablishmentofFamilyCourtswith
aviewtopromoteconciliationin,andsecure
speedysettlementof,disputesrelatingtomarriage
andfamilyaffairsandformattersconnected
therewith.”

13.Thepurposeofhighlightingthisaspectisthatin
thecaseathandtheproceedingbeforetheFamilyCourt

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

wasconductedwithoutbeingalivetotheObjectsand
ReasonsoftheActandthespiritoftheprovisionsunder
Section125oftheCode.Itisunfortunatethatthecase
continuedfornineyearsbeforetheFamilyCourt.Ithas
cometothenoticeoftheCourtthatoncertainoccasions
theFamilyCourtshavebeengrantingadjournmentsina
routinemannerasconsequenceofwhichboththeparties
sufferor,oncertainoccasions,thewifebecomestheworst
victim.Whensuchasituationoccurs,thepurposeofthe
lawgetstotallyatrophied.TheFamilyJudgeisexpectedto
besensitivetotheissues,forheisdealingwithextremely
delicateandsensitiveissuespertainingtothemarriageand
issuesancillarythereto.Whenwesaythis,wedonotmean
thattheFamilyCourtsshouldshowunduehasteor
impatience,butthereisadistinctionbetweenimpatience
andtobewiselyanxiousandconsciousaboutdealingwith
asituation.AFamilyCourtJudgeshouldrememberthatthe
procrastinationisthegreatestassassinofthelisbeforeit.
Itnotonlygivesrisetomorefamilyproblemsbutalso
graduallybuildsunthinkableandEverestinebitterness.It
leadstothecoldrefrigerationofthehiddenfeelings,ifstill
left.ThedelineationofthelisbytheFamilyJudgemust
revealtheawarenessandbalance.Dilatorytacticsbyany
ofthepartieshastobesternlydealtwith,fortheFamily
CourtJudgehastobealivetothefactthatthelisbefore
himpertainstoemotionalfragmentationanddelaycanfeed
ittogrow.WehopeandtrustthattheFamilyCourtJudges
shallremainalerttothisanddecidethemattersas
expeditiouslyaspossiblekeepinginviewtheObjectsand

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

ReasonsoftheActandtheschemeofvariousprovisions
pertainingtograntofmaintenance,divorce,custodyof
child,propertydisputes,etc.

14.Whiledealingwiththerelevantdateofgrantof
maintenance,inSectionShailKumariDeviv.KrishnanBhagwan
Pathak,theCourtreferredtoSectiontheCodeofSectionCriminal
Procedure(Amendment)Act,2001(50of2001)andcame
toholdthat:(SCCp.639,para21)

“21….Evenaftertheamendmentof2001,an
orderforpaymentofmaintenancecanbemadebya
courteitherfromthedateoftheorderorwherean
expressorderismadetopaymaintenancefromthe
dateofapplication,thentheamountofmaintenance
canbepaidfromthatdatei.e.Fromthedateof
application.”

TheCourtreferredtothedecisioninSectionKrishnaJainv.
DharamRajJainwhereinithasbeenstatedthat:(Shail
KumariDevicase,SCCp.645,para37)

“37….Toholdthat,normallymaintenance
shouldbemadepayablefromthedateoftheorder
andnotfromthedateoftheapplicationunlesssuch
orderisbackedbyreasonswouldamounttoinserting
somethingmoreinthesub-sectionwhichthe
legislatureneverintended.The[HighCourthad]
observedthatitwasunabletoreadinsub-section(2)
layingdownanyruletoawardmaintenancefromthe

http://www.judis.nic.in
11

dateoftheorderorthatthegrantfromthedateof
theapplicationisanexception.”

TheHighCourthadalsoopinedthatwhethermaintenance
isgrantedfromthedateoftheorderorfromthedateof
application,theCourtisrequiredtorecordreasonsas
requiredundersub-section(6)ofSection354oftheCode.

15.AfterreferringtothedecisioninKrishnaJain,the
SupremeCourtadvertedtothedecisionoftheHighCourt
ofAndhraPradeshinSectionK.Sivaramv.K.Mangalambawherein
ithasbeenruledthatthemaintenancewouldbeawarded
fromthedateoftheorderandsuchmaintenancecouldbe
grantedfromthedateoftheapplicationonlybyrecording
specialreasons.TheviewofthelearnedSingleJudgeofthe
HighCourtofAndhraPradeshstatingthatitisanormal
rulethattheMagistrateshouldgrantmaintenanceonly
fromthedateoftheorderandntofromthedateofthe
applicationformaintenancewasnotacceptedbythisCourt.
Eventtually,theCourtruledthus:(ShailKumariDevicase,
SCCp.647,para43)

“43.We,therefore,holdthatwhiledecidingan
applicationunderSection125oftheCode,a
Magistrateisrequiredtorecordreasonsforgranting
orrefusingtograntmaintenancetowives,childrenor
parents.Suchmaintenancecanbeawardedfromthe
dateoftheorder,or,ifsoordered,fromthedateof
theapplicationformaintenance,asthecasemaybe.
Forawardingmaintenancefromthedateofthe

http://www.judis.nic.in
12

application,expressorderisnecessary.Nospecial
reasons,however,arerequiredtoberecordedbythe
court.Inourjudgment,nosuchrequirementcanbe
readinsub-section(1)ofSection125oftheCodein
absenceofexpressprovisiontothateffect.”

16.Inthepresentcase,aswefind,therewas
enormousdelayindisposaloftheproceedingunderSection
125oftheCodeandmostofthetimethehusbandhad
takenadjourmentsandsometimesthecourtdealtwiththe
mattershowingtotallaxity.Thewifesustainedherselfas
farasshecouldinthatstateforaperiodofnineyears.The
circumstances,inourconsideredopinion,requiredgrantof
maintenancefromthedateofapplicationandbyso
grantingtheHighCourthasnotcommittedanylegal
infirmity.Hence,weconcurwiththeorderoftheHigh
Court.However,wedirect,asprayedbythelearned
counselfortheappellant,thathemaybeallowedtopay
thearrearsalongwiththemaintenanceawardedatpresent
inaphasedmanner.Thelearnedcounselforthe
respondentsdidnotobjecttosuchanarrangementbeing
made.Inviewoftheaforesaid,wedirectthatwhilepaying
themaintenanceasfixedbythelearnedFamilyCourtJudge
permonthby5thofeachsucceedingmonth,thearrears
shallbepaidinaproportionatemannerwithinaperiodof
threeyearsfromtoday.

17.Consequently,theappeal,beingdevoidofmerits,
standsdismissed.

http://www.judis.nic.in
13

11.ItisclearfromtheabovejudgmentthatSection125of

CriminalProcedureCodeisameanstoachieveasocialpurposeand

theobjectistopreventvagrancyanddestitution.Itgiveseffecttothe

fundamentaldutyvesteduponamantomaintainhiswifewhoisunable

tomaintainherself.Whileconsideringthepetitionforfixationofthe

amountofmaintenance,theCourthastotakeintoconsideration,the

incomestatusofthehusbandandthebareminimumrequirementsof

thewifewhoisunabletomaintainherself.Atthetimeoffixingthe

amountofmaintenance,thestandardoflivingtowhichthewifeisused

tomustalsobetakenintoconsideration.

12.ItistruethatthepetitionunderSection482ofCr.P.Cshould

notbeentertainedasasecondrevision,sincethesameisbarredunder

Section397(3)oftheCriminalProcedureCode.However,thereisno

absolutebarplacedonthisCourtinexerciseofitsjurisdictionunder

Section482ofCr.P.CandwhereeverthisCourtfindsthatthereisgrave

miscarriageofjusticeorthereisfailureofjustice,thesamecanalways

betakennoteof,andappropriateorderscanbepassedbythisCourtin

exerciseofitsjurisdictionunderSection482ofCr.P.C.

http://www.judis.nic.in
14

13.Inthefactsofthepresentcase,thisCourtisofthe

consideredviewthattherevisionalCourtoughttohavegivenreasons

astowhythepetitioner’swifeisnotentitledforenhancementof

maintenance.TherevisionalCourtcannotmechanicallyconfirmthe

orderofthetrialCourtandifsuchordersaresustained,itwilldefeat

theveryjurisdictionvesteduponaCriminalCourtunderSections397

andSection401ofCr.P.C.Onthisgroundalone,thisCourthastointerfere

withtheorderpassedintheCriminalRevisionPetition.

14.However,thisCourtdoesnotwanttoagainsendbackthe

partiestoonceagainundergotheordealofconductingproceedings

beforetherevisionalCourtforfixingtheenhancedmaintenanceandthis

Courtitselfwantstofixtheamountofmaintenancebytakinginto

considerationthepassageoftimeandalsotheincreaseinsalaryofthe

respondentinthelast8years.

15.ThisCourtdeemsitfittoenhancetheamountof

maintenancepayablebytherespondenttoasumofRs.10,000/-per

month.However,thisCourtdoesnotwanttomulcttherespondentby

givingeffecttothisenhancementwithretrospectiveeffectand

enhancedmaintenanceamountshallbepayablefromthemonthofJuly

2019.

http://www.judis.nic.in
15

16.Intheresult,theorderpassedbythelearnedDistrictand

SessionsJudge,CuddaloreinCriminalRevisionPetitionNo.29of2015,

isherebysetasideandthisCriminalOriginalPetitionisallowedwiththe

followingdirections:

(a)Therespondentisdirectedtopayamonthlymaintenanceof

Rs.10,000/-fromJuly2019onwardsonorbefore5thofevery

succeedingmonth;

(b)TherespondentshallpayasumofRs.20,000/-everyyear

towardsclothandmedicalexpenditureofthepetitioner’;

(c)Therespondentshallpaytheentirearrearsofmaintenanceif

anywithinaperiodofsixweeksfromthedateofreceiptofacopyof

thisorder,aspertheorderspassedbythelearnedJudicialMagistrate

No.I,Virudhachalam,dated01.08.2014andmadeinC.M.P.No.3356of

2011.Consequently,connectedmiscellaneouspetitionisclosed.

07.06.2019

Index:yes/No
Internet:yes/No
ub/rna

http://www.judis.nic.in
16

N.ANANDVENKATESH,J.

ub/rna

To

1.TheDistrictandSessionsJudge,
CuddaloreatVirudhachalam.

2.TheJudicialMagistrateNo.I,
Virudhachalam.

Crl.O.P.No.1125of2016

07.06.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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