Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1755 (MAD)

S. Rajkumar v. R. Jayapriya @ Ammu & Others

2007-06-13

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2007
Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the order made in M.P.No.1261 of 2004 in M.C.No.462 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, which was preferred by the wife and children of the revision petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/-per mensum each ie., for the wife and two minor children. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, after going through the averments in the petition as well as the objections raised in the counter, has held that the petitioners are entitled to get an order of interim maintenance and accordingly ordered Rs.3,000/-per mensum each towards interim maintenance till the disposal of M.C.No.462 of 2004. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointing out his plea in paragraph 4 of the memorandum of revision would contend that the revision petitioner is suffering from Diabetes and high blood Pressure and he has to look after his mother and only for his medical treatment alone, he has to spent Rs.6,000/- every month and he also requires Rs.14,000/- to meet his personal expenses. To substantiate this contention, the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate before the trial Court to show that he is suffering from the abovesaid ailment and also requires Rs.14,000/-to meet his medical expenses. Even if the abovesaid statements are true, it will not relieve him from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and children. At paragraph 6 of the counter filed in M.P.No.1261 of 2002 by the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has admitted that every month, he is paying Rs.13,500/-towards income tax and professional tax. If it is so, then his net salary would definitely be more than Rs.40,000/-per month. 4. Taking into consideration, the affluent circumstances of the petitioner only, the learned trial Judge has ordered a reasonable amount of Rs.3,000/- per month each towards interim maintenance. 5. The learned counsel would point out at this juncture that the second petitioner is not a minor now and he has become major as on 110. 2006 itself. Under such circumstances, the revision petitioner is bound to pay the arrears of interim maintenance to the second petitioner till 110. 2006. ie., the date of his attainment of majority. 6. 5. The learned counsel would point out at this juncture that the second petitioner is not a minor now and he has become major as on 110. 2006 itself. Under such circumstances, the revision petitioner is bound to pay the arrears of interim maintenance to the second petitioner till 110. 2006. ie., the date of his attainment of majority. 6. With this observation, the revision is dismissed, confirming the order in M.P.No.1261 of 2004 in M.C.No.462 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.