BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
02. 03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)NO.464 of 2014 D.R.Bibin .. Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent Vs. C.Jasmine Shelly ... Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.3768 of 2014 in M.C.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court NO.III, Nagercoil, dated 19.09.2014. !For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash ^For Respondent : Mr.P.Prabhakaran :ORDER
The petitioner is the husband of the respondent and both of them got married as per Christian Rites on 03.11.2008 at C.S.I.Church, Marankonam, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. It is the case of the respondent that at the time of marriage, she was given 55 Sovereigns of gold jewels and the petitioner was also given a cash of Rs.2 Lakhs, a gold chain weighing 7 Sovereigns, a bracelet weighing 3 sovereigns and a gold ring weighing 1 Sovereign and his sister was also given two Sovereigns of gold bangles and his brother was also given 1 Sovereign of gold ring.
2. It is the specific case of the respondent that from the date of marriage, she has been subjected to harassment, cruelty and ill-treatment at the hands of the petitioner herein and she was driven out of the marital home and some time thereafter, she joined with the company of the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent, out of wedlock, had begotten a male child, who was born on 07.01.2010.
3. The respondent would further contend that the petitioner is the Correspondent of Good Shepherd Matriculation School and she was the Principal of the said School for some time and he has also sold the School along with all assets for a hectic sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/- and for the purpose of establishing and running the School, he has taken all the jewels of the respondent herein and pledged and inspite of realizing the same, he has not taken care to pay any amount and return back the jewels. The respondent in this regard, has invoked the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Court by filing a petition under Sections 20(1) and 23(1) and (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and pending disposal of the same, she has filed a Miscellaneous Petition claiming interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-p.m. for her and for her minor child, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, both aggregating to a sum of Rs.25,000/-p.m. The said petition was opposed by the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as the respondent, by stating that though he is ready and willing to join with the respondent and his male child, the respondent is exhibiting adamant attitude and refused to join with him and also denied other allegations.
4. The trial Court, on consideration of the contentions of the petitioner and counter, has passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2014, wherein it has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m. to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m. to the second respondent aggregating to the sum of Rs.10,000/-p.m. Challenging the reality of the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband would vehemently contend that the petitioner is always ready and willing to live with the respondent and his son, but the respondent for the reasons best known to her, is refused to join with him and also treated him with cruelty. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband that no doubt, the School along with the assets were sold for a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/-, but the debt incurred by him is more than the amount incurred by him on the sale and he finds very difficult to meet out both the ends and would further contend that in any event, the award of interim maintenance pending adjudication of the main case is very much higher side and hence, prays for interference.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would contend that the petitioner/husband subjected the respondent/wife with verbal as well as physical abuse and she was driven out of the matrimonial home along with minor child and at present, she is, without any occupation, under the care and custody of her parents and the lower Court, taking into consideration of all the relevant aspects, has rightly awarded the interim maintenance and hence, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.
7. This Court, after considering the rival submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration the fact that the award of interim maintenance is only a temporary measure pending adjudication of the main case, is of the view that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court requires modification. The allegations and the counter allegations levelled by the parties herein against each other, in the considered opinion of this Court, can be gone into only in the main case, which is pending adjudication, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, the trial Court also went one step further and directed the respondent herein to buy a house or lease out a house, so as to enable the respondent to live there.
8. However, a perusal of the prayer in the main petition would disclose that no such prayer has been made by the respondent and she has prayed for permanent alimony. In the light of the said fact, the said portion of the order containing in Paragraph No.3 is liable to be set aside. Insofar as the award of interim maintenance is concerned, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m. awarded to the first respondent/wife is to be reduced to a sum of Rs.2,500/-p.m. and a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m. awarded to the second respondent/minor son is to be reduced to a sum of Rs.3,000/-p.m.
9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the impugned order directing the petitioner to purchase a new house or take out a new house on lease for the purpose of the residence of the respondent, is set aside and the award of interim maintenance is modified as follows: "The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-p.m. to the first respondent/wife and a sum of Rs.3,000/-p.m. to the second respondent/minor son payable from the date of the petition."
10. The respective learned Counsel appearing for the parties also undertook that both parties would extend their maximum cooperation for earlier disposal of the main case.
11. In the light of the above said submission, this Court directs the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil to accord priority and dispose of the case in M.C.No.6 of 2014 at an early date preferably on or before 30.05.2015. 02.03.2015 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssl To The Court of the Judicial Magistrate NO.III, Nagercoil. M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
ssl Crl.R.C.(MD)NO.464 of 2014 02.03.2015